Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. SPEAKER made the following communication to the House:

I regret to have to inform the House of the death, on active service, of Lieut.-Colonel Edward Orlando Kellett, Member for the Borough of Birmingham (Aston Division), and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARCHBISHOP OF REGGIO

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply was given by His Holiness the Pope to His Majesty's Ambassador to the Vatican on his expressing regret for the death of the Archbishop of Reggio in an air-raid by British aircraft?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): My hon. Friend appears to be misinformed. I have seen reports in the Swiss Press that His Majesty's Minister at the Vatican expressed to the Cardinal Secretary of State the regret of His Majesty's Government for the death of the Archbishop, and that the Pope communicated to him details of air-raid damage to Palermo and other Sicilian towns. Mr. Osborne informs me that these statements are entirely without foundation.

Mr. Stokes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any statement was in-

cluded in the reply protesting against the immorality of bombing open towns?

Mr. Eden: In whose reply?

Mr. Stokes: In the reply from the Vatican.

Mr. Eden: I do not think there was any statement to which they could reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES (BERMUDA CONFERENCE)

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made with the arrangements for the proposed conference at Bermuda between the British and the United States Governments concerning the rescue of victims from the Nazi terror; whether the date of the conference has been fixed; the names of the representatives to take part; the terms of reference; and whether the conference will be purely exploratory or will be able to decide on immediate measures of rescue?

Mr. Eden: While I was in Washington I had the opportunity of discussing this question with Mr. Cordell Hull, and it was decided that the conference should take place at an early date and as soon as the delegates could be assembled. The names of the British and American delegates will be announced as soon as practicable, in agreement with the United States Government. The discussions, for which an agenda has been agreed, will be exploratory in character but will naturally include any measures for relief of refugees, in addition to those already in operation, which may appear immediately practicable to the two Governments.

Miss Rathbone: Will it then be possible for the conference to agree on immediate relief measures and not merely to discuss them for reference back to some other body?

Mr. Eden: I think my answer is clear. It says:
naturally include any measures for the relief of refugees in addition to those already in operation.
If that is so, they can decide on immediate steps as far as they concern their two Governments. Of course, if they concern other Governments, these will have to be referred to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Deceased Personnel (Private Books and Papers)

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is the usual practice of the Ministry to destroy, after their death, letters and personal papers belonging to officers and other ranks killed on service?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): No, Sir. The normal practice is to hold the private books and papers of deceased personnel in safe custody until they can be handed over to the person entitled to receive them.

Mrs. Keir: Is it a fact that under the regulations no station commander has the right to destroy any private letters or papers?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir; that is so.

Requisitioned Estate (Amenities)

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Secretary of State for Air for what reason the fine trees in a park, which have been brought to his notice, are to be felled, beyond the limits of compulsory acquisition; whether the owner had been notified; whether it is proposed to pull down the historical William and Mary house?

Sir A. Sinclair: I am advised that there is still a possibility that interference with the amenities of the estate to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers can be wholly or very largely avoided. In the circumstances, perhaps he will allow me to defer giving him the information for which he asks until a decision has been reached, which will be very shortly, when I will write to him fully on the matter.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the possibility of the pulling down of the historical building causing great dissatisfaction on the East Coast?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir, and I should be very sorry indeed to authorise it, but my hon. and gallant Friend will, I am sure, appreciate that operational considerations must come first.

Airman's Discharge

Mr. Burke: asked the Secretary of State for Air, why J. Ormerod, 1758216, A.C./2, having been discharged from the Army as unfit was called up and passed

fit for the Royal Air Force; how long was he in the Force and how many days was he sick in hospital; and what was the cost to the taxpayers of this attempt to keep an unfit man in the Royal Air Force?

Sir A. Sinclair: The airman in question volunteered for service in the Royal Air Force and joined for duty on 5th August, 1942, after being medically examined under the customary arrangements made by the Ministry of Labour and National Service. He was admitted to hospital on 23rd December suffering from an old injury to the foot, for which he was offered but refused operative treatment. This injury did not render him unfit for Air Force service at home. While he was in hospital, however, evidence of another disability came to light. It was accordingly decided, as the result of a medical board, to invalid him, and he will be discharged on 25th April. He will then have been in the Service for about nine months, of which 93 days have been spent in hospital under observation or treatment. The details of cost for which the hon. Member asks cannot, I am afraid, be separately determined.

Mr. Burke: Is it not a fact that this man has not done a single day's duty and that all his time has been spent on the sick list; that he was discharged from the Army as unfit but was passed grade A when called up; and has it not been a sheer waste of money to try and keep this man in the Service when five doctors have said he was not fit?

Sir A. Sinclair: I am not trying to keep him in the Air Force. He is being discharged, and, as regards his being not fit, I can only go by the report of the medical board of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, who examine men for all the three Services, and they passed this man fit for service.

Mr. Burke: Is it not a fact that the last letter the Minister wrote to me says that this man is still fit for service, when, as a matter of fact, he is at home and has been discharged, and the Minister has not the right information about him?

Sir A. Sinclair: The last thing I have said to my hon. Friend is that the man is being discharged on medical grounds.

Mr. Bellenger: How comes a man discharged from the Army to be taken in the Air Force as A1?

Sir A. Sinclair: Because he is passed on to the Air Force by the medical board which works under the Ministry of Labour and National Service for all the Services. He is passed by them as fit.

Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider appointing a medical board to examine the medical board?

Sir A. Sinclair: That is the position into which I should be forced if I adopted the suggestion of my hon. friends opposite,

Mr. De la Bère: Are there not far too many of these cases?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION

Mr. Burke: asked the Secretary of State for Air what salaries are paid to the newly appointed directors of British Overseas Airways Corporation; whether they are to give full-time to the work of the Corporation; and whether any of them have financial interests in other forms of transport?

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the new members of the British Overseas Airways Corporation will follow the precedent of their predecessors of giving their services without remuneration?

Sir A. Sinclair: The answer to the first part of the Question of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) is that one of the new members is to receive a fee of £750 per annum. No other fees are being paid. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative. As for the third part, I have satisfied myself, as required by Statute, that such interests as the new members have in other undertakings are so remote, or otherwise of such a nature, that they can properly be ignored.

Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how directors can look after the interests of such a world-wide organisation as this on a part-time basis; and, further, to whom was this fee of £750 paid?

Sir A. Sinclair: It would be very difficult indeed to find a sufficient number of men of sufficient experience and of the high quality necessary who would give

the whole of their time to this work. These gentlemen have, in fact, applied themselves to this work with the greatest industry and energy and have sat nearly every day on the business of the Corporation since they were appointed. Did my hon. Friend ask to whom the fee was paid? To Mr. John Marchbanks.

Mr. Stokes: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House how it is that members who are not paid manage to live? They have no interest in any other form of transport or business, presumably, and will he explain how they live, and who pays them?

Mr. Burke: Is it a fact that the previous members of the board were not paid salaries?

Sir A. Sinclair: It is true that the previous members of the board were not paid salaries. In reply to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), I do not think that the House of Commons can really expect me to express an opinion on how they live.

Major Lyons: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House that these two gentlemen regard this appointment as a whole-time appointment?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir, I said not.

Mr. Burke: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has considered a resolution passed by the staff and departmental directors of the British Overseas Airways Corporation, making a suggestion regarding the appointment of a chairman and chief executive officer of the Corporation; and what action does he propose taking in the matter?

Sir A. Sinclair: The suggestion made by certain members of the staff of the British Overseas Airways Corporation referred only to the office of chairman and has since been withdrawn.

Mr. Burke: Is it not a fact that though it has been withdrawn by certain members of the staff, departmental directors still adhere to it, that in any case it was only withdrawn because it might embarrass the new board, and that it still represents the collective mind of the staff; and will he give it consideration?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. The people who made the representation to me on behalf of the staff have withdrawn it.

Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that half the troubles of the British Overseas Airways Corporation are due to "Reith-ism"?

Oral Answers to Questions — MESSRS. SHORT BROS.

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production, with reference to the purchase of the shares of Short Brothers, the amount owed by the company to its bankers and the amount owing to the Treasury on account of taxation at the end of the company's year, ended August, 1942?

The Minister of Aircraft Production (Sir Stafford Cripps): The accounts of the company for the year ended 31st August, 1942, have not yet been completed. I cannot therefore give the actual figures. I may say, however, that the amount of the bank advance is very considerable, as with many concerns engaged in war production, and the amount owing to the Inland Revenue relatively small.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCRAP METAL, NEWPORT

Sir Reginald Clarry: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the' Ministry of Works whether he is aware that there are at least 20,000 tons of scrap metal blocking the merchants' yards at Newport; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the contents of these yards are removed and utilised before any further private railings are taken down and collected by his Department?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): The latest returns show 12,000 tons of scrap in merchants' yards in Newport. I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, however, that this figure is not excessive; nor is it a reason for suspending the programme of railings recovery, which has been organised on a country-wide basis to meet the expanding needs for scrap and should be carried through while the necessary labour is available.

Sir R. Clarry: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to cause an investigation into the quantity of scrap in yards which has not been collected?

Mr. Hicks: I have answered the hon. Gentleman by saying that it is 12,000 tons and that it is not too much.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOMB-DAMAGED HOUSES (REPAIRS)

Commander Bower: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works on what grounds it has been decided that contracts under the proposed scheme for the repair of C (b) houses on Merseyside shall be on a cost plus basis instead of the fixed price basis which has hitherto predominated?

Mr. Hicks: It was decided by my Noble Friend after consultation with the Ministry of Health and the War Damage Commission that the cost plus system with adequate supervision offered the only satisfactory method of dealing with the accelerated repair of bomb-damaged houses in large numbers, by means of pooling the resources of local builders and operatives.

Commander Bower: After all we have been told about the wastefulness and iniquity of the cost plus system, ought we not to have a rather more detailed explanation?

Mr. Hicks: I think the hon. and gallant Member and others will appreciate that in repairing a bomb-damaged house it is very difficult to assess the degree of damage until the work is commenced. It is not like an ordinary contract.

Commander Bower: Have they not been successful up to the present without the cost plus system?

Commander Bower: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works on what grounds he has decided to introduce a voluntary scheme to pool all builders and contractors in the Merseyside area; and in what respects this scheme is superior to the present arrangement under which small firms have repaired and maintained nearly a quarter of a million houses since May, 1941?

Mr. Hicks: The scheme to which the hon. and gallant Member refers is not confined to the Merseyside area but is being applied in all districts where there are substantial numbers of bomb-damaged houses. I am fully aware of the excellent work which small firms have done both in Merseyside and in many other parts of the country in the repair and maintenance of houses, but with a view to accelerating the repair of the large number of bomb-damaged houses, so as to


make them habitable, the Government has decided that it is necessary to organise the work on a larger scale. The scheme, which will use, with certain exceptions, only immobile labour, employed mainly by the medium and small builder, has been devised so as to secure that the necessary labour is made available with the voluntary assistance of the industry, thus avoiding the more serious interference which would be caused by the operation of the normal method of direction. I am satisfied that such a scheme will produce greater efficiency and economy than a series of individual uncoordinated contracts.

Commander Bower: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that under this new scheme full use will be made of the great experience of the smaller men in the industry, so many of whom started as ordinary workmen and have worked their way up into their present positions and who have, in many cases, far greater experience than the big bosses who, apparently, will run this show?

Mr. Hicks: I can readily give the hon. and gallant Gentleman that assurance, and I can also assure him that this scheme is designed to give them that help.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENSINGTON GARDENS (BARBED WIRE FENCING)

Mr. Tinker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he is aware that barbed wire fencing has been erected at one end of Kensington Gardens, near the junction with Hyde Park and Bayswater Road; and will he have an inspection made to see if it is necessary to use this method of fencing?

Mr. Hicks: Yes, Sir. I have had an inspection made of the fencing referred to by my hon. Friend, and am satisfied that, for security reasons, it is necessary.

Mr. Tinker: Can my hon. Friend find some other method of fencing rather than this hideous form of fencing? To see this barbed wire arouses a feeling of hostility in one's mind.

Mr. Hicks: I hope my hon. Friend will give me credit for having removed a lot barbed wire, but this is necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING PRACTICE (CODES)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he will substitute his codes of practice, when complete, for existing building regulations and/or model bylaws of the Ministry of Health; and whether they will be made to apply to all towns, cities and rural areas?

Mr. Hicks: I can assure my hon. Friend that every step will be taken to secure the most effective use of codes of good building practice when these are completed. The Ministry of Health is represented on the Codes of Practice Committee, and when the codes are established the question as to what action is desirable will be considered by the two Ministries. Meanwhile, I would emphasise that the first thing is to secure agreement on what is good practice, and to establish the codes.

Mr. Bossom: May I congratulate the Minister——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Hicks: Why not?

Mr. Bossom: Will the hon. Gentleman consider making it apply to all villages and towns throughout the country?

Mr. Hicks: That is the aim.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Pack Drill

Mr. Walter Edwards: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether pack drill is now being used as a form of punishment in the Royal Navy; and, if not, when it was abolished?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): No, Sir. Pack drill is not, and never has been, used as a form of punishment in the Royal Navy.

Anti-U-Boat Warfare Committee

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the representatives of the Admiralty normally attending the U-Boat Committee now include any with special knowledge of scientific and technical matters?

Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir, including two distinguished scientific specialists who are both Fellows of the Royal Society.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTESE CIVIL SERVICE

Mr. William Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whther he will reconsider his refusal to give facilities to attend the annual conference of his trade union in this country to Mr. R. G. Miller, the representative of the Maltese civil servants employed by the Admiralty, War Office and Air Ministry in Malta, in view of the bad effect of this refusal on the morale of the Maltese people, a large proportion of whom are engaged in Government service, and desire to maintain trade union organisation in their island and contact with members of their organisation in Britain?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): I sympathise with the desire of the Civil Service Clerical Association to welcome a representative of Malta at their annual conference. But in view of the heavy pressure on available transport facilities between this country and Malta, I regret that I do not feel justified in supporting the association's request for the provision of a return passage for Mr. Miller.

Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that this is the first time since the war began that the association have asked for these facilities for a member of their staff? Further, is he aware that the association regard direct consultation with Mr. Miller as important? Will he reconsider his reply?

Colonel Stanley: I cannot reconsider my reply. I did consider those factors, and I am anxious to help, but the hon. Member must realise the extreme difficulty of communications and transport from Malta. In the present circumstances it is quite impossible.

Sir Stanley Reed: Will the Minister see that all the transportation available is reserved for the serving men who have done such gallant work in Malta?

Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that Mr. Miller has rendered yeoman service in Malta, that he has lost two sons there as a result of bombing, and that he is a first-class servant of the Admiralty in Malta?

Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL OFFICE LABOUR ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now consider an expansion of the Colonial Office Labour Advisory Committee in view of the fact that larger committees dealing with other subjects have been set up; and whether he will state the present composition of the Committee?

Colonel Stanley: I do not consider an enlargement of the Committee is necessary at the present time. As was stated on 23rd April, 1942, in reply to a Question on this subject by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), the Committee has power to co-opt members whenever the advice of persons with special knowledge on a particular question is required. The Chairman of the Committee is the Parliamentary Undersecretary, and its membership is the same as that given in reply to the Question to which I have referred.

Mr. Sorensen: Could the Minister say how many members there are on the Committee and how often the Committee meets?

Colonel Stanley: There are five non-Colonial Office members. I cannot say exactly how often the Committee meets, but it meets regularly.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA

Labour Conditions

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken in British Guiana to implement minimum wage legislation, to introduce factory legislation and to appoint an advisory committee, as requested by local trade unions, to investigate conditions in the sugar industry; and whether the workmen's compensation ordinance is working satisfactorily?

Colonel Stanley: Provision was made in the Labour Ordinance, 1942, whereby minimum rates of wages can be fixed by the Governor-in-Council upon the recommendations of an Advisory Committee appointed to investigate the conditions of employment in the occupation concerned. An Order was made on 19th May, 1942, fixing rates for various classes of water-front workers in the port of


Georgetown. I am inquiring from the Governor whether further orders have been made and for up-to-date information concerning the appointment of Advisory Committees under the Ordinance. I am also asking the Governor for information on the other points raised in this Question, and will communicate with my hon. Friend on receiving a reply.

Nursing Service

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will inquire into the wages, hours of work and conditions of nurses in British Guiana; whether any steps will be taken to reduce the excessive hours now being worked; and whether a superannuation scheme for nurses is in operation?

Colonel Stanley: I have no special information on these points but, if the hon. Member will let me know the particular points in which he is interested, I will ask the Governor for the information.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman also ask for a report regarding the general condition of nursing services in British Guiana, in view of the disquiet that exists, the long hours that are worked, and the conditions that prevail?

Colonel Stanley: It is in order to prevent our having to ask, in the great stress under which Colonial Governments are working, for a general report, that I would like to consult with the hon. Member as to the particular points on which he wants information.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any instructions have been sent to Colonial Governments regarding the provisions which should appear in their trade union legislation in order to comply with the requirements of Section 1 (2a) of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1040, for the purposes of schemes involving the employment of local labour; and, if so, whether any Colonial Government will be required to enact such legislation before any grant is made under this Act in respect to a scheme of this nature?

Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir. All Colonial Governments have been notified of the

provisions which should appear in their legislation for the purposes of Section 1 (2) (a) of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1940. It was thought reasonable that an interim period should be allowed during which the actual approval of schemes should not be automatically withheld pending the enactment of the legislation, but it is certainly not my intention to allow that interim period to continue indefinitely.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (REFUGEES)

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what number of Polish and other refugees have settled in Kenya and Tanganyika; whether such settlement is of a permanent character or whether reconsideration of their country of residence will be given after the war; and what parts of Kenya and Tanganyika have been assigned for the refugees?

Colonel Stanley: The East African Governments have promised to provide accommodation for 21,000 refugees from Persia, of whom the majority have already arrived in East Africa. Owing to the present food shortage the arrival of the remainder has been temporarily postponed. In addition, they have accepted about 1,500 refugees of various categories from the Middle East. All these refugees are being accommodated in East Africa for the duration of the war only. Tanganyika has provided accommodation for 8,000 of the Polish refugees and for about 800 others. They are being housed either in specially built camps or in missions in various parts of the territory. Kenya is to provide camp accommodation for 1,500 Polish refugees but I have not yet been informed whether a site has been selected. The remainder are to be accommodated in Uganda, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

Mr. Creech Jones: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say where these sites are likely to be? Will they be in the areas assigned for white settlement, or will they be in areas allocated for the use of Africans?

Colonel Stanley: Kenya has not yet selected a site. I am afraid I could not answer offhand the question with regard to Tanganyika. I will let the hon. Member know.

Mr. Hannah: Will they have the option of remaining in East Africa after the war if they so desire?

Colonel Stanley: That is a question we shall have to decide after the war.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA (MEDICAL SERVICE)

Sir Francis Fremantle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the advisability and possibility of establishing a subordinate medical service in West Africa on the lines of that which has for many years done most useful work under the Indian Medical Service?

Colonel Stanley: The whole question of medical services in West Africa is now under consideration in the Colonial Office, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the provision of African medical auxiliaries of all grades, as well as fully qualified medical officers, has already made considerable progress and will undoubtedly be extensively developed as increased training facilities become available.

Mr. Sorensen: When is the report of that investigation likely to be available to hon. Members?

Colonel Stanley: It is not a report that is made available to hon. Members; it is not a report by a committte. I shall, of course, announce any decisions to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCHANT NAVY

Sea Training Schools

Sir Robert Rankin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether, in view of the large number of boys under 18 years of age not yet liable for registration who are already on a waiting list for entry into the Merchant Navy's Sea Training School, he will consider extension of the school and also arranging with the Admiralty that, in certain cases, entry into the Royal Navy might be permitted at an earlier age than at present prescribed?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I am aware that there is a long waiting list of boys who desire to enter the Gravesend Sea School. But this school, together with the other sea training schools, can already supply all the

boys whom the Merchant Navy can absorb. No useful purpose would at present be served, therefore, by an extension of the school. I understand that the Admiralty would welcome an increased number of volunteers of 17 and 17½ years old for service with the Royal Navy. But on this matter my hon. Friend may desire to consult my right hon. Friend the First Lord.

Service Respirators and Steel Helmets

Captain W. T. Shaw: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he intends to issue Service respirators to members of the Merchant Navy; whether he is aware that tin helmets are not issued in sufficient quantities; so that some members of crews in action stations have no such protection; and whether he proposes to remedy this?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Respirators are now issued to the defence personnel in all merchant ships, but the personnel in ships which have not recently returned to this country may not yet have received them. Steel helmets are issued to the whole crew of ships sailing on routes which are specially subject to air attack. On vessels sailing on other routes, steel helmets are provided for each officer and petty officer, and for ten per cent. of the rest of the crew. If my hon. and gallant Friend knows of any vessel in which, in his view, these arrangements are inadequate, I will cause inquiries to be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — FERRY SERVICE, QUEENSFERRY

Mr. Mathers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he can make a statement regarding increased rates and fares on the ferry service between North and South Queensferry?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The ferry service between North and South Queensferry is operated by a private firm under agreement with the London and North Eastern Railway Company. The operators are entitled, under this agreement, to make charges not exceeding those for which the Company have statutory authority. The recent increase of 10 per cent. brings the total increase over pre-war charges to 20 per cent. on motor goods vehicles and 25 per cent. on other traffic, but the firm have, where necessary, so limited the increase made as to keep the new charges


within the statutory maxima. My hon. Friend will understand that the increase did not require any authorisation by my Noble Friend. From such financial information as I have so far received, however, I am not satisfied that the increase is justified, and I am calling upon the operators to show reason why it should not now be withdrawn. If they cannot show good reason, and are not prepared to withdraw the increase, I will consider whether action can be taken under Defence Regulations.

Mr. Mathers: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to recognise that there is a strong opinion that the increase in these charges does not add to the revenue of the ferry but actually decreases it?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I know that is a point that is made, but I am not quite satisfied it is right, and there are other points about which I am not quite satisfied. I have given the hon. Member my present opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Fares, Rural Areas

Mr. Price: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether, in rural areas where connection with the neighbouring market town is both by omnibus and by rail, he will ensure that railway fares are reduced to the level of omnibus fares so as to encourage the public to use the railway and relieve pressure on the omnibuses?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The adjustment of railway fares which my hon. Friend proposes would involve a number of difficulties. Omnibus fares are laid down and authorised for individual services and are designed to meet local conditions; there are considerable variations throughout the country, not only in the basis of fares, but also in the types of tickets issued and the conditions governing their use. Railway fares are based on standard scales of general application, while the types of tickets and the conditions governing their use are uniform; local adjustments would, therefore, create serious anomalies as between different parts of the railway system. Moreover, road and rail routes often differ in distance, in the places which they serve and in the points from

which fares operate. For these reasons, I regret that I do not think it would be practicable to adopt my hon. Friend's proposal.

Mr. Price: Does my hon. Friend realise that there are often cases where a reduction in the rail fare would relieve the 'buses of very serious congestion? Cannot he do something about this matter?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I fully sympathise with the hon. Member's purpose and I agree that if it could be done without creating other difficulties, such reductions might be desirable, but the other difficulties are very formidable.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a very important problem and that where he has raised the rail fares by 60 per cent. in my area, he has driven people from the trains to the 'buses?

Mr. Noel-Baker: There is a special problem in that area to which my hon. Friend knows I am giving special consideration.

Mr. George Griffiths: And in my area also.

Seating Accommodation (Long Journeys)

Mr. Tinker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War' Transport whether he is aware of the trouble and discomfort caused to third-class passengers who, on long journeys, have to stand in the corridors owing to lack of seating accommodation in third-class carriages, while at the same time there are empty seats in first-class compartments; and will he have notices put up to tell such passengers they are entitled to take such seats and also to instruct the railway officials to see this is carried out?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am aware that passenger trains are in general heavily loaded, both in first and third-class carriages. As I have said in previous answers to a number of hon. Members, the railway staff have been given discretion to allow passengers with third-class tickets to occupy seats in first-class carriages without extra charge, when the third-class carriages are seriously overcrowded. In answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's Question, I think the present arrangements are now generally understood, and that, on the whole, they are working well.

Mr. Tinker: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is the reason I wanted the fact to be made more public? Whenever I travel I see the corridors full, and when I say to people, "Why not take a first-class seat?", I find they are afraid to do so because they might be ordered out of the first-class compartment.

Mr. Liddall: Is the Minister aware that on seven occasions during the last few months the hon. Member for Lincoln has had to travel from Grantham to King's Cross in a luggage van?

Mr. G. Griffiths: Was the hon. Member labelled and was the weight put on?

Mr. Tinker: Can the Minister give a more definite answer to my appeal?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I want to do what I can to make this known, but I am afraid the practical proposal made in the Question would raise great difficulties.

Mr. Molson: Will the Minister make it quite plain that the position he mentioned applies only when there are no first-class passengers who are standing?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think the whole thing is pretty well understood, and I think the railway officers are administering it very well.

Coastal Areas (Restrictions)

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport why, since the contemplated ban on entrance to areas within the 10-miles depth from the coast of the so-called restricted areas must affect the train services should occasion arise, there is to be a ban on the notification to intending passengers that journeys to such areas cannot be completed and should therefore be abandoned?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The restrictions imposed by the military authorities will not necessarily affect train services to the restricted areas, since parcels, mails, and authorised passengers, for example, members of His Majesty's Forces, will still have to be carried. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained in his statement on 30th March, it will not be possible for the military authorities to make any general public announcement as to the nature, time, or place of any restrictions which may be imposed. The

Railway Companies will not, therefore, be able to notify intending passengers.

Sir L. Lyle: Is it not a fact that the traveller will himself know in two hours' time, or whenever he gets to his destination, that there is a ban, and might he not be told this at the railway station and thus avoid unnecessary travel and hardship later?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The right course for him to adopt, I suggest, is when in doubt to inquire locally, before starting the journey, whether any restrictions have been imposed.

Sir L. Lyle: Is the Minister aware that I have already been told there is nobody to inquire from?

Weekly Season Tickets

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he will consider the issue of weekly rail season tickets at a rate not exceeding six times the old cheap day rail fares?

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether, in order to meet the needs of regular daily travellers who previously used cheap day return tickets, he will arrange for the issue of weekly season tickets on railways wherever there is a demand?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friends for this opportunity of reminding the public that in many parts of the country the railways have issued weekly season tickets, and of adding that arrangements will be made for the issue of such tickets wherever there is a demand. I regret that it would not be practicable to fix season ticket charges on the basis of the old cheap day fares. Season tickets provide unlimited travel for seven days a week, and are based on a statutory scale which gives a decreasing rate per mile as distance increases. Cheap day tickets were issued between certain places only and the hours of availability were often limited, while the fares were based on a rate per mile which did not vary with distance, although it differed in various' parts of the country. Except for short distances (up to about six miles), the rate per mile for a weekly season ticket, calculated on six return journeys only, is generally less than the rate per


mile previously charged for a cheap day ticket, and the comparison is even more in favour of the season ticket when, as often happens, it is used for more than six return journeys a week.

Mr. Etherton: In view of the public discontent, will the hon. Gentleman do his best to make the public aware of the concession that he has indicated and bear in mind that inequalities and anomalies still exist in respect to journeys of under six miles, particularly in view of the short hours for which workmen's tickets are available?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I hope the Question and answer will serve the purpose the hon. Member has in view.

Paddington Station (Washing Facilities)

Mr. W. Brown: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that at Paddington Station, Great Western Railway, there are no facilities for women and children to wash after 7 p.m.; and whether he will have steps taken to remedy this situation?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Washing facilities have been normally available at Paddington Station from eight in the morning till ten at night. Recently, however, the washrooms have been closed for varying periods of time, owing to the shortage of towels and soap. Instructions have now been given that they shall be open during the same hours as before, for passengers who have their own towels and soap.

Seaside Resorts (Advertising, Llandudno)

Mr. W. Brown: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the efforts of the Llandudno Publicity Committee to attract visitors to the town; and whether, having regard to the Minister's appeals to the public to avoid unnecessary travel, he proposes to take any action on the matter?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I have seen references to this matter in the Press. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Moss-side Division of Manchester (Mr. Rostron Duckworth) on 31st March, I deprecate any campaign the effect of which is to induce additional travel. I have no power to forbid the Llandudno Publicity Committee to spend

money on advertising, but I confidently hope that they will be guided in their action by the knowledge that our passenger train services are severely strained, and a sense of duty to the nation in the present emergency.

Sir Herbert Williams: Would it save trouble if the hon. Gentleman advertised the fact that Llandudno is the place where Surtax is collected?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD HAULAGE SCHEME

Major Lyons: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether, seeing that membership of the new Government scheme is voluntary, he can give an assurance that adequate operational facilities and reasonable supplies are afforded to those operators who choose not to join; and that no indirect measures are taken to jeopardise their respective businesses?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The purpose of the Road Haulage Scheme is to secure the greatest practicable economy in the use and mileage of haulage vehicles. With this in view, the Government intend that all long-distance traffic shall be carried in vehicles working under the Scheme. As I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise, hauliers who take part in the Scheme are guaranteed substantial rights in return for their acceptance of certain obligations. It would be wholly inconsistent with the object of the Scheme to assure hauliers who decline to take part in it that they will nevertheless receive facilities and supplies for carrying long-distance traffic outside the Scheme, and I regret that I can give no such assurance.

Major Lyons: Does the hon. Gentleman, realise that if this is in fact a voluntary Scheme for the industry, it seems really all nonsense to say to those operators who do not join the bureaucracy that by threatening to withdraw supplies they will be forced out of business? They have been given an option and now is compulsion brought in by threat of extinction?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I can only remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the necessity to save rubber and petrol and therefore to curtail road mileage is imperative.

Major Lyons: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport the numbers of divisional road


officers and area road officers, respectively, now existing; whether, and to what extent, each of these numbers has been increased this year to date; and what are their salaries and duties, respectively?

Mr. Noel-Baker: There are now 12 divisional road haulage officers and 48 area road haulage officers. Last year the numbers were 6 and 14. Divisional road haulage officers control the road haulage organisation within their divisions. Four of them are unpaid; the other eight receive £950 a year. Area road haulage officers control the road haulage units in their areas which deal with long-distance traffic; they also arrange the movement of Government traffic for shorter distances. They are paid from £100 to £750 a year, according to the scale and the responsibility of their work.

Major Lyons: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the ultimate distribution and control both of material and in operative route remain in the hands of the Regional Traffic Commissioners and their many assistants, and in these circumstances are not many of these appointments quite unnecessary.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not accept the suggestion for a moment.

Major Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether such long answers are really necessary?

Major Lyons: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether, in view of the diversion of load-carrying from roads to rail that results from the new Government haulage scheme, he has had adequate consultation with the main railways as to their capacity to receive such traffic; and whether he has received their assurances accordingly?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No traffic will be diverted to rail or to any other form of transport without consultation to ensure that it can be carried.

Major Lyons: Is it a fact that this Scheme was put into operation without a single consultation with the railway companies on their capacity to carry?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Of course, we control the railway companies and we know what their capacity is.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether his attention has been called to the fact that the small lorry-driver is greatly prejudiced by the regulation that he is forbidden to deliver parcels under the weight of 16 lbs., while the wholesaler is under no such restrictions; and will he arrange to treat all alike?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am not sure what regulation my hon. Friend has in mind, but if he will let me have particulars, I shall be happy to look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

Jewish Broadcasts

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Minister of Information how many times Jews have spoken in British radio programmes on behalf of Jewry since the outbreak of war?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): I regret I cannot ask the B.B.C. to conduct the laborious inquiry suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend. But I can tell him that British subjects of every denomination have spoken in the programmes of the B.B.C. in denunciation of the vile treatment of Jews in Germany.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to speak?

Mr. Bracken: I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that invitations are given by the Governors of the B.B.C. and not by the Government. If he applies to the Governors, I am sure they will consider his application sympathetically.

Beveridge Report (Talks)

Mr. Granville: asked the Minister of Information whether it is the policy of his Department to authorise Ministry of Information speakers to give talks at public meetings on the Beveridge Scheme for Social Security?

Mr. Bracken: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 24th March in reply to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander).

Mr. Granville: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the practice of his Department to authorise the official speakers of the Ministry of Information to give talks on the Beveridge Report?

Mr. Bracken: I gave a most comprehensive answer to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, and it would really be tautological for me to add to it.

Mr. Granville: That answer applied to some weeks ago. I am asking whether his Department is authorising talks on the Beveridge Report now.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Member is asking that Question, and I cannot add anything to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton.

Propaganda (By-elections)

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Minister of Information whether he will consider using some part of his powers of world propaganda in order to assure foreign peoples that British citizens do not express a desire for a termination or a weakening of the war effort when they record their votes at by-elections in favour of such candidates as believe that the British people would work and fight even more enthusiastically if they had an opportunity of looking forward to post-war prospects different from those offered by the present Government?

Mr. Bracken: No, Sir. Perhaps the hon. Baronet will forgive me for suggesting that his interest in by-elections cannot justify his assumption that the Armed Forces of the Crown are not fighting with all the enthusiasm they possess.

Sir R. Acland: Does the Minister realise that quite a lot of sincere and patriotic citizens do seem to share my views, and is it not part of his duty to try to present to the world the views and opinions of all sincere and patriotic citizens?

Mr. Bracken: It is no part of my duty to use the British propaganda machinery to spread offensive observations about the Army.

Colonial Secretary's Speech, Oxford (Publicity)

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Minister of Information whether he will circulate to such agencies and publicity organisations as may be available and to the newspaper Press throughout the Colonial Empire the speech delivered at Oxford, on 5th March, by the Secretary of State for the Colonies?

Mr. Bracken: The admirable speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies was well reported by all the principal news agencies.

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDRO-ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the increasing practice of legislation by reference, as exemplified by the Government's Amendments to the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Bill, incorporating references to 150 individual Sections in eight different Acts of Parliament dating from 1882 to 1935; and whether, in view of the necessity for saving the time of Parliament, local authorities and the business community, he will instruct all Government Departments to avoid this practice, either by the methods recommended in 1938 or by other methods?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I am not aware that the practice of legislating by reference is increasing. It is impossible to draft a Bill amending existing legislation without referring to that legislation. The Bill referred to by the hon. Member sets up a new Board on whom it is proposed to confer, subject to certain necessary modifications, the powers under existing legislation of authorised undertakers and of the Central Electricity Board. As the hon. Member is aware, the Bill as introduced proposed that the necessary modifications of the existing legislation should be made by Order in Council; and it was in deference to views expressed by hon. Members that amendments were put down by the Government to make the necessary modifications by the Bill itself. It is necessary to apply no less than 13 separate enactments comprising 299 Sections and 13 Schedules.


To have set out in a Schedule the whole of these enactments with the proposed modifications would have resulted in the production of a Bill which, by its mere bulk, would be more difficult for Members to understand than the Bill in its present form with the amendments proposed. As regards the last part of the Question, the draftsmen of Government Bills have constantly in mind the proposals made in 1938 and all other available methods of making amending legislation as lucid as possible.

Mr. Stewart: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that in new major Measures of this kind a serious effort ought to be made to ensure that such a Bill as this is, as far as practicable, a complete legislative entity in itself, so that the House and the country may understand what they are doing without endless references to Acts more than half a century old?

The Prime Minister: I have covered that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — DAVID BROWN AND SONS, HUDDERSFIELD (DIRECTORS)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Production whether he will be in any way responsible for the appointment of the new directors of David Brown and Sons, Huddersfield, in place of those appointed on 1st July last who have now resigned?

The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): Sir Charles Craven, as Chairman of the (Inter-Departmental) Munitions Management and Labour Efficiency Committee, is, at the request of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and myself, in consultation with the firm to assist them in their appointment of new directors to the Board. The firm welcome these discussions.

Mr. Stokes: As the directors recently retired were appointed by my right hon. Friend's Department or the Ministry of Supply, does my right hon. Friend propose to take some sort of responsibility for the administration of this firm?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir. At the present moment the directors are being appointed by negotiations.

Oral Answers to Questions — MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT (DEVELOPMENT WORK)

Mr. Horabin: asked the Minister of Production whether it is the established practice of all departments associated with production that development work on mechanical equipment must be a continuous process and that until a machine has been built and tried out it should not be put into production?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir, whenever practicable; but my hon. Friend will appreciate that operational and other war-time exigencies sometimes make necessary a departure from the established practice referred to.

Mr. Horabin: In cases where development and production have been elided has this practice not led to undue delay in the production of satisfactory equipment?

Mr. Lyttelton: Risks sometimes have to be taken.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that two years ago a stop was put to the development of tanks and aeroplanes and that that is one of the reasons why we fell behind in aeroplanes and never got a satisfactory tank?

Oral Answers to Questions — TANKS

Mr. Kendall: asked the Minister of Production whether, in view of the urgency of developing a tank with heavier guns and heavier armour than any now in production for use in the future, he has now any precise information to give the House in this connection?

Mr. Lyttelton: It would not be in the public interest to disclose this information.

Mr. Stokes: Did not my right hon. Friend himself say that he was proposing to follow this course and nothing has happened since so far as anybody knows?

Mr. Granville: asked the Minister of Supply which tank has been produced from the drawing board in six months and in what quantity?

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): The hon. Member presumably refers to the Churchill tank, and I would refer him to the full statement made by the Prime Minister on 15th December last.

Mr. Granville: Is it not a fact that A23 is a modification of A20 and was two years in production from the drawing board?

Sir A. Duncan: I can add nothing to the Prime Minister's statement.

Mr. Stokes: Arising from that unsatisfactory reply, have there not been two statements by the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Production in the House that this machine, the A22, was produced in six months, which every engineer knows is an impossibility?

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is it not a fact that production from the drawing board is merely designing the machine after it has been made?

Mr. Granville: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say whether a tank has been produced from the drawing board in six months?

Sir A. Duncan: I can add nothing to the full statement of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Horabin: asked the Minister of Supply in which types of tanks the Liberty engine, designed in the last war, is still being used?

Sir A. Duncan: It is not in the public interest to give the information asked for. The engine has of course been greatly improved since it was adapted to make it suitable for tanks.

Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend say why it is not in the public interest as the enemy must know as they have captured some? Why has no Diesel engine been developed?

Sir A. Duncan: Some tanks with this engine have not been captured, and are not in the fighting line.

Mr. Stokes: I wish to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of these replies which the Minister of Supply has given, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Horabin: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that, in June,

1940, the whole of the Special Vehicle Development Committee warned his Department against putting the A 22 into production until it had been vetted by engineers independent of his Department; and why that advice was not taken?

Sir A. Duncan: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the full statement made by the Prime Minister on 15th December last.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that such a letter was written in May, 1940, and will the Minister say why attention was not paid to the recommendation of these people, who were the only competent people to advise?

Mr. Kendall: asked the Minister of Supply (1), what has now happened to the Special Development Committee appointed by his Department in 1939 to design tanks with heavy armour and heavy armaments;
(2), whether the members of the Special Vehicle Development Committee appointed in 1939 by his Department were specialy chosen for their experience of mechanical warfare; and whether he will state their names?

Sir A. Duncan: The Special Vehicle Development Committee was set up in October, 1939, under the chairmanship of Sir Albert Stern, K.B.E., C.M.G. Other members were:

Sir Eustace Tennyson d'Eyncourt, K.C.B.
Major-General Sir Ernest Swinton, K.B.E., C.B., D.S.O.
Major W. G. Wilson, C.M.G.
Mr. H. R. Ricardo, F.R.S.

The members of the Committee had taken a prominent part in the initiation, design and production of tanks in the last war. The Committee devoted its attention to the design of a particular type of tank and was dissolved in November, 1941.

Mr. Kendall: As this Committee was experienced in tank design, why was it necessary to dispense with its services?

Sir A. Duncan: My predecessor in office felt that the work which the Committee had done had reached a stage when it was convenient that they should discontinue their functions as a Committee—and I fully agree with his decision—and that


the services of Sir Albert Stern should be retained in the Department to develop further certain features of the tank design. That work has gone on and will be handed over to our own division in the Department at the end of this month.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister consider appointing some of these people to the Tank Board in place of some of the incompetent people now there?

Mr. Hammersley: In the interests of greater accuracy, would it not be right to say that one of the members of this Committee, Major Wilson, resigned in the early part of 1940?

Sir A. Duncan: I was referring to the Committee as a whole. Another member of the Committee is rendering distinguished service to the Department.

Major Lloyd: Cannot this Committee design a tank which will deal effectively with the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes)?

Mr. Stokes: That would take a long time and probably prove impossible.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEEL TUBE MANUFACTURE

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that the chairman of Messrs. Stewarts and Lloyds and another director of the same firm have joined the board of Messrs. Wellman, Smith, Owen Engineering Corporation, having previously joined the board of Messrs. Davey, Brothers, of Sheffield; that these two firms are the only two qualified to carry out the manufacture of rolling mills for steel tubes; that Messrs. Stewarts and Lloyds, the largest steel tube manufacturers in the country, are now controlling both Wellman's and Davey, Brothers; whether this amalgamation of interests has been carried out with his knowledge and approval; and whether any consideration has been given to the fact that this amalgamation may be used to monopolise this trade after the war?

Sir A. Duncan: I understand that directors of three steel companies have been appointed to represent the steel industry on the boards of the two engineering companies referred to. I am informed that the sole purpose is to further co-operation between the steel industry and that section of the engineer-

ing industry specialising in the design and construction of iron and steel plant, and that there is no question of control by any firm.

Mr. Hopkinson: Is it not the policy of the right hon. Gentleman to continue his life's work of fostering the formation of monopolies of every sort?

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir. I was neither asked to give, nor did I give, approval.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Fish Retail Sales (Favouritism)

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction of many consumers caused by certain fishmongers showing undue favouritism to selected customers and by other back-door methods of selling prime cuts of controlled fish; and whether, upon receipt from his officers of authentic proof of such practices, he will take steps to terminate the supplies of fish to such retailers?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part, my hon. Friend will, I am sure, realise that it is very difficult to obtain "authentic proof" of an allegation of "undue favouritism," but my Noble Friend is in sympathy with the object which my hon. Friend has in view and wherever satisfactory evidence is forthcoming that a retailer is deliberately disposing of his supplies in an unfair manner such action will be taken as lies within the power of my Noble Friend.

Mr. Walkden: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his statement, which will please the mass of the people who are writing to him and other Members, may I ask whether he will make it clear that anybody who cheats or does not play fair with the people's food will be dealt with severely and immediately?

Mr. Mabane: They will be dealt with, as I say, within the powers of my Noble Friend.

Milk

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the break-down


of milk supplies to consumers in an area of Bedlington owing to a retailer's refusal to deliver in the zone allocated to him, and that for nearly a week adults, children and babies were deprived of milk; and whether this zone has now been adequately provided for?

Mr. Mabane: Yes, Sir. I am aware that a retailer failed to deliver milk to customers transferred to him under the scheme for the rationalisation of retail milk deliveries in the Bedlington area. Immediate steps were taken to provide supplies for these customers, as I think my hon. Friend is aware.

Mr. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for six days babies and children were without milk?

Mr. Mabane: I thought that the hon. Member saw the local officer on 20th March and that since then the distribution has been working satisfactorily.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why large retailers supplying milk are given progressively higher rebates per gallon than the small man, while the bigger firms are entitled to charge 2d. a gallon extra if they sterilise the milk?

Mr. Mabane: With regard to the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 21st October to the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major York). As regards the second part, no specific extra charge of 2d. per gallon has been prescribed for sterilised milk. All distributors, large and small, may sell sterilised milk at the same price as they charged for such milk in the same area in the corresponding period of 1941, plus any increase that may have been authorised in the price of ordinary milk.

Mr. Hannah: Are the Government aware of the widespread feeling that there is discrimination against the small man?

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether all tuberculin-tested milk is sold unmixed with other milk?

Mr. Mabane: No, Sir.

Ministry of Food (Fish Division)

Mr. Liddall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will state the number of persons em-

ployed in the fish division of his Ministry; how many have had previous experience of the trade; and the present approximate amount of money being expended on the fish division of the Ministry?

Mr. Mabane: The number of persons employed in the fish division of my Department at Headquarters is 172, and the number employed locally is 38. 17 officers have had previous experience of the industry. The salaries of Headquarter personnel are at the rate of approximately £40,000 a year; other figures of cost are not available.

Mr. Liddall: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that he is getting full value for that expenditure?

Mr. Mabane: Yes, Sir.

Fish Zoning, Merseyside

Mr. Logan: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, in view of the unsatisfactory system of zoning for Merseyside, whether he is prepared to receive a deputation of interests concerned to suggest a better method of co-ordinating distribution in this area?

Mr. Mabane: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Bootle (Squadron-Leader Errington) on 17th February. Since then further modifications of zonal boundaries and of distributive arrangements have been made in consultation with the Fish Industry Joint Council and will shortly be put into force, and my Noble Friend proposes to obtain experience of the effect of these changes before entering into discussions such as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Logan: I asked in the latter part of my Question whether the hon. Gentleman is prepared to meet the deputation of people from Liverpool who know something about the difficulties of the situation. Is he aware that the anomaly in Liverpool is that fish supplies are not being received by the public but that draper shops can get them?

Mr. Mabane: That is rather a complicated supplementary, but, as I said in my reply, modifications have been made which I think will meet the difficulties. When we have had experience of the working of these alterations, we can consider further discussions.

Mr. Logan: I have seen people in queues this week-end, and is not the Minister prepared to meet a deputation and go into the pros and cons of the position?

Mr. Mabane: I have indicated that my Noble Friend wishes to see how the modifications will affect distribution and he will if they are unsatisfactory be prepared to consider receiving a deputation.

Parcels from Abroad (Investigations)

Miss Rathbone: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered the statement sent him showing that, within the fortnight ended 25th March, a single well-off family of three persons in Salford received 14 parcels from Cape Town, each weighing about four lb., and containing fats, tea, sugar and other foods; that the local food office declined to interfere, and ordered the postal authorities to continue delivering me parcels, although some months earlier, when the same household was receiving about 12 similar parcels weekly from Cape Town, Bombay and Mauritius, the food authorities had instructed him to tell the senders not to send any more; and will he take steps to prevent such abuses of the privilege of receiving gifts from abroad?

Mr. Mabane: From preliminary inquiries which have been made there appears to have been an abuse of the regulations in this case. I am having further investigations made and will communicate the result to the hon. Lady.

Miss Rathbone: Does not this one case, brought to light by the public spirit of a single person, who was in a position to know the whole of the facts, suggest that there may be hundreds or even thousands of other cases where this privilege of getting an unlimited number of food parcels from abroad is being seriously abused, and could not the regulations be tightened up?

Mr. Mabane: I am sure the hon. Lady will appreciate the danger of arguing from the particular to the general.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOAP INDUSTRY

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, of Food, in view of the closing of a

number of soap works, consequent upon the proposed scheme for the concentration of the soap industry, why zoning was not adopted for this industry?

Mr. Mabane: The purpose of concentration is to save man-power and space. The purpose of zoning is to save transport. Concentration and zoning are thus not alternatives.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRUST PROPERTY (ORDER IN COUNCIL)

Flight-Lieutenant Challen: asked the Postmaster-General why, by Order in Council (Statutory Rules and Orders, 1943, No. 293), he has relieved himself of the ordinary duties that may arise from dealing with property held on trust?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Grimston): I think my hon. and gallant Friend is under some misapprehension as to the effect of this Regulation. Under the Trustee Act, 1925, and the Execution of Trusts (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, a trustee is in certain circumstances enabled to delegate the execution of the trust for a limited period. The Regulations to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers are complementary to the provisions already made by Parliament in these Acts as their purpose is to enable the Savings-Bank to accept a power of attorney given under those provisions in respect of the transfer or withdrawal of deposits.

Flight-Lieut. Challen: Does the Minister agree that the effect of this Order is to reduce his liabilities in cases where he is dealing with property in respect of which there is a trust, and does he consider it right that the Minister, by his own Order, should reduce his legal liability?

Mr. Grimston: No, Sir, I am afraid that is not so. This is rather a technical question, and if my hon. and gallant Friend would like to discuss it with me afterwards, I should be happy to meet him.

Sir H. Williams: Does the Minister not think it unfortunate that this Order is so obscurely worded that a lot of people have misunderstood it, and will he withdraw it and write it in language which can be understood?

Mr. Grimston: I cannot accept that view of the Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREETINGS TELEGRAMS

Mr. Brooke: asked the Postmaster-General, in view of present needs for economy in man-power, why his Department continues to urge the public to send greetings telegrams?

Mr. Grimston: The Post Office has given no publicity urging the use of the greetings telegram service since the war began.

Mr. Brooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that on the books of stamps on sale at this moment in this House there appear on the first page the words, "Send a Greetings Telegram"?

Mr. Grimston: No, Sir, but we are using up old stock here, and I think in view of that this particular point might be overlooked.

Oral Answers to Questions — TUNISIAN OPERATIONS

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to the course of the operations in Tunisia?

The Prime Minister: I have received reports from the High Command in Tunisia that a new victory has been gained by the Desert Army. At half-past four yesterday morning, in the darkness of a moonless night, General Montgomery ordered his main forces to the assault of the Akarit position North of Gabes. The advance of the British and Indian infantry divisions was preceded and covered by a barrage of about 500 guns, which is practically the Alamein scale. The enemy appeared to be taken by surprise by this attack out of pitch darkness. His fortified positions were overwhelmed, and by noon all the dominant key points were in our hands. A hole had been blasted in the centre of the enemy's 12-mile defensive line, through which our armoured and mobile forces were immediately ordered to advance The enemy now fought with savage vigour to restore the situation, but all his counter-attacks were repulsed. The advance of the British armour continued, and by nightfall the open country had been reached. Over 6,000 prisoners have been taken so far. Rommel's army is now retreating Northward, and is being hotly pursued. This successful battle and frontal attack should enable the Desert Army to join hands with the United States Forces who have been pressing the enemy

unceasingly from the West. The whole of the operations of the group of Armies on the Tunisian front are being concerted by General Alexander under the supreme command of the Allied Commander-in-Chief, General Eisenhower.

Mr. Bllenger: Naturally the House will be very glad to receive this good news. The Prime Minister is aware that there are other issues at stake. May I therefore ask him whether the enemy forces engaged were the main forces or whether they were a rearguard?

The Prime Minister: My statement covers the whole position. The enemy retreat did not begin until after the assault was successful.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR INJURIES (EQUAL COMPENSATION)

Mrs. Tate: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is now in a position to announce the Government's decision on the recommendations made on equal compensation?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): Yes, Sir. The Government have given full consideration to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Equal Compensation and, after consulting the Trades Union Congress on points covered by the general pledge of discussion with that body, have arrived at the following conclusions:—

(1) The Government recognise that, as the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme applies only to injuries associated with the war, there is for this reason an essential difference between it and any permanent scheme of compensation. This being so, they have decided that the rates of compensation payable under it for disablement to gainfully occupied persons need not be related to earnings or to any other factor involving sex discrimination. The rates of injury allowance and disablement pension for gainfully occupied women on account of war injuries will therefore be raised to the rates at present provided for gainfully occupied men.
(2) The Government have no hesitation in agreeing that this decision must be extended to all war service injuries sustained by civil defence personnel: also to the disability pensions payable to the basic grades in the Women's Auxiliary Services and


the Merchant Navy, the rates for higher ranks being increased by the same amount as is added in the basic ranks, or, in the case of officers, £25 a year.
(3) The Government have also decided that a married man in receipt of injury allowance as a gainfully occupied person or Civil Defence Volunteer, but not in hospital, should receive as a wife's allowance an addition of 8s. 9d. a week to the 35s. which he at present receives in common with the single man. While in hospital he will continue to receive his present rate of 35s.
(4) Finally, the Government have decided that non-gainfully occupied persons, male and female, including housewives, shall have their present rates of injury allowance and disablement pension increased in all cases to those at present paid to gainfully occupied men.

Thus the Government have accepted in full the recommendations of the Select Committee in the belief that the Committee are right in holding that these improvements can have no effect on levels of remuneration or in the field of compensation. The Government do not propose to wait for the necessary amendment of the many instruments which will be affected by these changes but a little time must be taken in making the administrative arrangements for payment at the revised rates. They will, therefore, be brought into effect with the payments falling to be made in the week beginning on 19th April, from which week they will be applied to all existing cases.

Mrs. Tate: While thanking my right hon. Friend, may I assure him with what very great appreciation the news will be received that the great injustice which has been suffered by women with regard to war compensation until this date has been removed, and with what gratitude we receive this concession from the Government?

Mr. Mathers: Will the change have any retrospective effect?

Sir W. Womersley: I have stated that payments will commence from the week beginning 19th April, and will apply to all cases where benefit is now being received.

Mr. Driberg: Is not this an admirable illustration of the value of prodding the

Government, and of disregard of the party Whips by hon. Members?

Sir R. Acland: May one mere male Member of this House put on record the real gratitude which this House feels towards the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) and her colleagues who have pursued this matter so diligently?

Sir Francis Fremantle: Will an allowance be made not only for a wife but for children, too?

Mrs. Tate: That is already done.

Viscountess Astor: May I also say how deeply grateful we are? It shows the value of independence.

Orders of the Day — NURSES BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Roll of assistant nurses.)

Mr. Hutchinson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "assistant nurses," and to insert "nursing assistants."
The object of this Amendment and the other Amendments which appear on the Paper in my name is to meet the apprehension which is felt by a number of State registered nurses that, if a new class of assistant nurse is introduced, some confusion will arise between the State registered nurse who has undergone the full period of training and has obtained the full qualification and the new assistant nurse who has reached only a preliminary stage in her training. What is apprehended is that, in the mind of the public, no very clear distinction will be drawn between those two classes, if both are permitted to use the expression "nurse" as part of their authorised description. At first sight the Committee may think that this is a distinction without a very real difference behind it but I hope to show that there is a very substantial difference indeed.
In the case of institutions, nothing very much turns upon the different description, because both classes will continue to be described colloquially as nurses. Nothing will prevent that. The difficulty arises with nurses sent out to fulfil private engagements. The magic of the description lies, of course, in the expression "nurse." There is a danger—the Committee may think it is a substantial danger—that confusion will arise in the public mind between the State registered nurse and the assistant nurse in cases where a "nurse" is offered for a private engagement. It is essential to find some description which will not lead to that confusion in the public mind which seems likely to be caused by the description "assistant nurse."
As far as I am aware, this is the only case in which a-person is able to obtain a recognised professional description before he or she has acquired the full pro-

fessional qualifications. In this case a nurse, if she has completed two years' training and passed certain examinations, will be entitled to make use of the description "nurse." Having investigated the matter I have been able to find no other case in which the acquisition of the preliminary professional qualifications entitles the person concerned to make use of the professional description. The Committee will bear in mind that the important element in this description is the term "nurse." Under this and the other Amendments which I have placed on the Order Paper, the assistant nurse would become known by a description which will convey clearly to the public mind, not always very accurate in these matters, that the assistant nurse or "nursing assistant," as I propose to call her, has not yet acquired the full professional qualifications.
I do not desire to be drawn into a discussion of the qualifications of the assistant nurse. Everybody, I think, recognises that she is entitled to the special official status which she will get under the Bill. Everybody recognises the value of the services which she performs. It is true that she is capable of performing certain limited nursing services. Nobody disputes that. But I venture to submit to the Committee that the name which I suggest more accurately describes her qualifications than the name proposed in the Bill. It seems to me that the expression "nursing assistant" will convey to the public mind the fact that the person to whom it is applied possesses certain nursing qualifications, but not the full qualifications which are required to entitle her to State registration as a nurse, more clearly than the expression "assistant nurse."
I am aware—and no doubt my right hon. Friend in his reply will dwell upon it—that this is not a new matter. It was considered at some length by the Athlone Committee. The result of their consideration was that they recommended—and the Minister has followed their recommendation—that the new class of enrolled assistants should be described as "assistant nurses." That was not a unanimous recommendation. I notice that all the qualified nurses who were members of the Athlone Committee dissented from that recommendation. They presented a


minority report, in which they recommended that any description including the expression "nurse" should be restricted to those nurses who had attained full qualifications. But the recommendations of the Committee did not follow those lines.
I have examined the reasons given by the Athlone Committee for their recommendation. I am bound to say that I am not impressed by them. They reached their conclusion by what seems to be a peculiarly inverted form of reasoning. They began by saying that whatever the various descriptions which might be applied, nurses would still colloquially be known as "nurses." That, of course, is true. The committee went on to say that they recognised that there might be a certain confusion in the public mind if the assistant nurse became entitled to a description which involved the use of the term "nurse." I should have thought that that would have been the best possible reason for recommending the use of some other description. But notwithstanding the fact that the Committee recognised that some confusion in the public mind was likely to arise, they still went on to recommend the adoption of the expression which they thought likely to give rise to such confusion.

Sir Francis Fremantle: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend whether the ladies in question presented a minority report or made any definite alternative suggestion?

Mr. Hutchinson: I have already said that there was a minority report by four ladies who were, I think, the only four nurses on the committee. In that report they recommended that a description which included the term "nurse" should not be applied to assistant nurses, and they suggested another description.

Sir F. Fremantle: What was that suggestion?

Mr. Hutchinson: My hon. Friend knows that they suggested that the assistant nurse should be described as a "registered invalid attendant." I am not suggesting that description to the Committee. I think that the term "nursing assistant" which I propose describes more accurately the person concerned and

the duties which she is qualified to perform.
I was pointing out before I was interrupted that the recommendation of the Athlone Committee in favour of using the expression "assistant nurse" was not unanimous. Those who might be considered to have had the widest experience in the matter dissented from it and presented a minority report. The last point which I wish to make is this. Surely this is a matter upon which this Committee ought to give a decision. Surely the time has come when it is not sufficient for a Minister to come before this Committee and say that some special committee has recommended this, that or the other thing? It is for this Committee to decide—and this Committee is quite well able to decide—a matter of this nature. We must, of course, attach to the recommendations of these special committees such weight as their recommendations deserve: but the final decision must rest with this Committee. This Committee is the right body to decide a matter of this nature. We can judge whether the expression "assistant nurse" is or is not likely to give rise to misunderstanding in the public mind. As I say, we must attach such weight to the recommendations of the Committee as those recommendations deserve, but it is for us to make up our own minds upon this matter. For those reasons I have put down these Amendments to substitute "nursing assistant" for "assistant nurse."

Mr. Storey: I hope the Committee will not agree with this Amendment, because I believe it undermines the whole intention of the Bill, which is to give a recognised status to women who have the necessary degree of training to perform special duties for which there is a great demand. To refuse the name of "assistant nurse" would be to discourage women from taking this necessary training and would relegate them, I submit, to the level of the domestic staff of a hospital, which could quite as well be described as nursing assistants. As the Mover of this Amendment pointed out, the name is that which was recommended by the Athlone Committee, and I submit that it is a much better name than that suggested by the minority report quoted by my hon. and learned Friend. It is also a name which is recognised——

Mr. Hutchinson: My hon. Friend appreciates that the minority report recommended another description which is not the description in my Amendment.'

Mr. Storey: That is what I was referring to. I was submitting to the Committee that the name recommended by the Committee was much better than that suggested by the minority element on that Committee. It is a name which is recognised in practice in our hospitals; it is understood, and it has, for the period of the war, been recognised in the Civil Nursing Reserve. To make the alteration suggested would undermine the whole spirit of the Bill. I hope the Committee will not agree to it.

Mr. Ammon: May I say at the outset that I heartily agree with the Mover of the Amendment in so far as he said that while committees may be useful on occasions it is for this House to determine what shall be in the Bill? I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment as being against the intention of the Clause which is to give a recognised position to assistant nurses, and which does not cover those who have had no training whatever. The qualifications required are set out in the Athlone Committee's Report, and this Billie doing very tardy justice to a very hard-working and very important part of the nursing profession. I hope that the Committee will accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's advice by very rapidly deciding to reject his Amendment.

Sir F. Fremantle: I was on the Athlone Committee, and I held pretty strongly that we should meet, if we could, the wishes of the State registered nurses in this matter. I proposed the name "nursing aid," but when they decided against that and in favour of "registered invalid attendant," I felt that it was impossible that such an involved title should come into general use. I agree with my hon. Friend that we want to do two things; one is to protect the position and the general repute of the State registered nurse. But we also want to do something more important to achieve a very definite recognition and protection of the position of the assistant nurse in order to attract a far larger number of women to come into this kind of work than hitherto. It is in order to attract recruits to the

profession that we are mainly engaged in this House with this Bill. We want to do everything we can to encourage them to come in, and "assistant nurse" will encourage them, whereas the description proposed in the Amendment would do the opposite.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I am glad that those hon. Members who have spoken since the Amendment was moved have realised that the object of this Bill is to give a very definite status to the qualified assistant nurse. The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment made a proposition with which I think we all agree, that it is for this Committee to decide at this moment what should be the title of this qualified person who will have undergone two years' training, that training to be arranged and supervised by the General Nursing Council. It has been pointed out that the minority on the Athlone Committee who were State registered nurses would not agree to that term, but the Nursing Reconstruction Committee has met since then, and the nurses there agreed to the term "assistant nurse," and urged that that term should be used. I agree with the hon. Member for Sunder-land (Mr. Storey) that the term "assistant nurse" is being used now, and being used officially, in the Civil Nursing Reserve for those who have had two years' training. We want to make it clear, and I think the title does make it clear, that such a woman is a qualified assistant nurse. The mover of the Amendment said that the public would not be able to distinguish, because such a woman would have the full professional description. But she does not have the full professional description. The full professional description is "registerd nurse, and the description of the person who has had two years' training is "assistant nurse." There have been a good many complaints in this House of things not being made clear. If we have that object in mind, I do not think we could get clearer words than "assistant nurse."

Dr. Russell Thomas: What exactly is the qualification of an assistant nurse? The hon. lady says that they are qualified people. I want to be clear, because I believe that the only qualification——

The Deputy-Chairman: That is going beyond this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Linstead: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, to leave out "conclusive."
As the Sub-section is now drafted it makes a certificate under the seal of the General Nursing Council as to whether any person is or is not an enrolled assistant nurse conclusive evidence in any court of law. In other words, it rules out any possibility of the person affected producing evidence to the contrary. In the keeping of a roll which will probably include 20,000 or 30,000 names it is by no means impossible that mistakes may arise. There may be mistakes resulting from the identity of names, or mistakes from changes of address, or even office mistakes in connection with the keeping of a lengthy and complicated document. I think we cannot entirely put this out of mind, and that it should be possible for anyone likely to be affected by a certificate such as this to bring some evidence to the court—not to be entirely deprived of the right to bring any evidence before the court—to show that there is a mistake in the certificate, that she is, in fact, registered. That is, I hope, the effect of leaving out the word "conclusive." It will make the Council's certificate evidence but will leave it possible for a person to bring before the court evidence to show that there is a mistake in the certificate.

Mr. Storey: One thing I should like to say in support of the Amendment is that although there has been no need for this point in the main Bill—the Nurses Registration Act—which has been on the Statute Book for many years that is no reason why we should not make an improvement. I think that the proposed Amendment does improve the position. It does provide for a possibility which could occur, and the fact that it has not occurred over a long period of years is no reason why we should not make an improvement now.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I think my hon. Friends are on a sound point, and I propose to accept the Amendment. It will require a similar Amendment in paragraph 2 of the Second

Schedule, and in a proposed new Clause which is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Rules.)

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, after "rules," to insert:
after consultation with trade unions and other organisations representing nurses.
The rules referred to here will be of the utmost importance, and, in my view, they ought to be agreed in advance so far as is possible with the people concerned, rather than there having to be some alteration after they have been decided. I know what the arguments against my Amendment will be. First, it will be asked what trade unions we are to consult, and how we are going to consult all the bodies which are interested. It will be said that, from the standpoint of practical politics, the Amendment, therefore, cannot possibly be accepted. I realise that difficulty, but I suggest that, even if consultations do not take place, it might be as well if the proposed regulations were submitted to the organisations representing nurses. I would not press this to any extent if I were not aware that the General Nursing Council is not a satisfactory body to draw up the regulations, according to many people who are affected. The nursing profession itself—while it has not taken full advantage of its opportunities in electing its representatives—is continually complaining.
The General Nursing Council is a supposedly representative body. There are two members appointed by the Board of Education, two, I think, appointed by the Privy Council, five—I speak from memory—appointed by the Minister of Health, and 16 who are elected by the nurses. It is a strange thing that the 16 who are elected by the nurses are all matrons or ex-matrons, and that every one of them has only voluntary hospital experience. The Bill deals in the main with the type of nurse who is employed by municipalities rather than the type employed by voluntary hospitals. The work of the assistant nurse is usually that of attending the chronics, and the voluntary hospitals do not have chronics. It is one of the weaknesses of our hospital system that the voluntary hospitals con-


sider that a long drawn-out chronic type of case should be dealt with by the public authority, while they deal with the more interesting type of research case. It seems to me that the General Nursing Council, representing only those with voluntary hospital experience, should not be trusted to draw up the rules without consultation with other people who may have some contribution to make. I know that these rules will probably be scrutinised before they are decided upon, but it is very much better to get a measure of agreement before they come into operation, because they are so important. Members will see, if they look at Sub-section (1), how important are the matters that the rules cover. They include rules
for regulating the conditions of admission to the roll.
It is quite possible for the General Nursing Council to want to do one of two things, either of which might be equally harmful, although they are quite opposite. If the General Nursing Council want to kill assistant nurses, they can do that by framing regulations which will make it impossible for many to get on the roll. On the other hand, they can make it so easy that the qualifications of the assistant nurse will be so low as to make it unnecessary to get on the roll at all. The Sub-section also provides that rules shall be made
for regulating the formation, maintenance and publicationu of the roll
and
for regulating the conduct of any examinations which may be prescribed.
I only want some undertaking that the organisations representing nurses and the trade unions will be consulted. I would not ask for the Minister to consult every trade union. If he would consult the Trades Union Congress, it would, I think, meet the position. I hope that the Minister will go some way in meeting the intention of this Amendment. I am confident that he can do that without upsetting anybody, and that he can so oil the wheels of the machine and make it easy for this Bill to be what we want it to be, a generally agreed Measure.

Dr. Haden Guest: I rise to say, very shortly, that I support my hon. Friend and hope that the Minister will be able to make some statement which will meet the necessity for extended democratic consultation,

especially with the trade unions and professional organisations concerned. It is of the utmost importance that there should be as much consultation as possible, especially as up to the present the nursing profession has been to a very large extent unorganised. The more consultation you get, the better final organisation you will hammer out.

Mr. Linstead: I very much hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendment. One of the very great benefits' of this Bill seems to be the possibility of developing the nursing profession into one unified whole, under the General Nursing Council, which will become the real and effective governing body. One of the things which will assist the General Nursing Council in achieving that position is, surely, the feeling that it is substantially master in its own house, that it is really the governing body of an important profession which is part of the public health service. If the General Nursing Council, before it can do this, that or the other which it considers would be beneficial for the nursing profession, has to consult trade unions and nursing organisations, not as a matter of convenience but as a statutory obligation, it is going to find its powers considerably curtailed and is not going to have the feeling that it really is the governing body. One realises that there will be occasions when the nursing organisations will have to be consulted, and any wise General Nursing Council will probably consult them then. But there is all the difference in the world between voluntary and compulsory consultation. In order that the profession may be under a really effective governing body, I hope that the Minister will reject the Amendment.

Sir Adam Maitland: The hon. Member in moving the Amendment admitted that there were practical difficulties in the way of carrying it out. That was a very frank admission and is something of which we should take note. If the General Council of Nurses is not the right body to perform the tasks which this Bill imposes upon them, then the Bill itself is fundamentally wrong. I do not think that we in this Committee should delegate duties to any responsible body and then sit down and say that this or that is the way in which they should perform those duties. The Mover of the Amendment says frankly that people who


were very much concerned in this matter were the local authorities who employed many of these nurses. There is no suggestion that they should be consulted, and yet they should have a very good knowledge of the conditions under which the nurses are trained. I hope that the Minister will reject the Amendment. There is no reason why, if there should be consultation as is suggested, it should be, limited. I hope that in framing rules the General Council of Nurses will get the best advice they can and that they will have the wisdom to rule out bad advice. If they do not do these things, it will be unfortunate if under the Bill they should be trusted with duties they could not exercise.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I intervene because I happened to be a member of the Athlone Committee. I am sorry that hon. Members are so terrified of an Amendment of this kind. We have passed several Bills during the last few years, and during this war, too, where consultation very much on these lines is included either in the Schedule or in the body of the Measure. Whatever the Minister may say, I hope that he will give some indication that the General Nursing Council will of their own volition consult the organisations that cover these nurses. I will give one point that affected my mind when I sat on that Committee. I want to be frank, and I must say how the evidence affected me. The hon. Gentleman for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) was there, too, and perhaps I can carry him with me in what I say. I will take the point about examinations which the hon. Gentleman suggested. While the General Nursing Council never laid it down that an elementary school girl could not become a trained nurse, all the examination papers were drafted to achieve that result. Therefore, while the avowed policy was not against the elementary school girl becoming a trained nurse provided you put the examination on so high a level and made it so difficult that no one could pass unless she had been through a secondary school, you could thus achieve the same object without saying so. I speak from memory, because I saw some of the examination papers, and one of the questions was: "Where is the Andes, and describe it?" As it happened, there

were only two Welsh people on the Committee.

Mr. E. Brown: They ought to know.

Mr. Davies: Would the right hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. Brown: Certainly.

Mr. Davies: I am agreeably surprised at his great knowledge of geography. What is the use of asking questions of that kind which have not the remotest relation to the job that nurses have to perform? Whether the right hon. Gentleman opposes this Amendment or not, he will, I hope, be able to get the General Nursing Council—and it will do good for the nursing profession—to keep their ears to the ground as to what is happening inside the profession. We have to understand that trade unionism and associations are growing among nurses, and the evidence I have received shows that they are rather alert and vigorous in some respects. I trust that if the right hon. Gentleman is not able to accept the Amendment, he will give some undertaking on this matter.

Mr. E. Brown: It is clear from the remarks of the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) and the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) that they realise that I cannot accept the Amendment in this form. It would bind the. General Nursing Council to a particular form of consultation with a particular body when, if there was to be legal consultation it would have to be with a much wider range of bodies than merely the trade union bodies. That fact is appreciated. There are one or two things that I would like to say. The hon. Member for South Tottenham is under a misapprehension here. He bases the bulk of his case on a subject about which I have, like him, some feeling, namely, the issue of the chronic sick. He took the point—and it was, I am glad to tell him, a false point—that there are no nurses on the General Nursing Council representing municipal hospitals. That is not so. I had better make it clear to the Committee, since there seems in this Debate for the first time some dissatisfaction with the General Nursing Council. It is in the main an elected body by the whole body of nurses and by postal ballot. Sixteen nurses out of the 25 there are elected by the whole body of nurses and by


postal ballot. There therefore cannot be a more representative way of getting qualified persons technically to do the difficult professional task with which, under the general law of 1919 and under this Bill, that particular body is charged. But of these 11 are general State registered nurses. At the moment one of them was a municipal hospital matron, and of the remainder two are nurses in mental hospitals, one in a fever hospital and one is a male nurse.
Therefore the Committee will see that my hon. Friend has not quite understood how formidable is the body of experience in municipal hospitals represented on the General Nursing Council, and I should expect that. We would have heard more adverse criticism in the last 24 years of the operations of these admirable bodies if they had not been representative in drawing up all the regulations and rules with which they are charged. I say this to my hon. Friend, since there is some trouble there. I cannot imagine that there would be any reluctance to consult with organisations, and I would represent to them the feeling represented in this Debate. When you come to deal with the real subject of this Bill—the assistant nurse—all the matters which wholly or mainly concern them must be first remitted to a committee on which the assistant nurses will themselves be, as the Bill provides, heavily represented. In view of that statement, I hope that my hon. Friend will not feel it necessary to press the Amendment.

Mr. Messer: In view of what the Minister has said—and I am pleased that he has gone so far—I gladly ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, which was moved only for the purpose of getting such information as he has given.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Linstead: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, to leave out "either." It will be most convenient, first of all, to look at the next Amendment standing in my name—in page 2, line 22, to leave out from "behalf," to "and," in line 23. It will be seen that the effect is to take out the words:
or in the service of the Admiralty, the Army Council or the Air Council,
leaving the paragraph to require that the prescribed training shall be carried out in an institution approved by the Council in

that behalf. In other words, whether the training is carried out in a civilian institution or in a Service institution, the General Nursing Council must still approve. The reason for that proposal is that you are going to have presumably a steady increase in the standard of training of these assistant nurses. If you are to get that increased standard of training in the civilian institutions, it is important that you should have an increased similar standard of training in the Service institutions. One has to remember that the Services' outlook on their casualties is, "Are we going to get this man well quickly so as to return him again to full service, or are we going to discharge him to a civilian institution?" The Service hospitals are not really concerned to keep their sick people for a very long time. Their whole outlook on nursing is consequently circumscribed by the fact that if a man is not likely to get well quickly, he will be discharged to a civilian hospital. That must reflect upon the experience and training which the assistant nurse in these institutions will get, and it is very important that the training in the civilian and in the Service hospitals should be equated. This will be effected by this Amendment requiring the Council to approve the training in both types of institution.

Mr. Storey: I want to say a word in support of the Amendment. The Bill attempts to set a standard. We would be making a false start if we did anything which would allow exceptions to be made to that standard. I am not suggesting for a moment that training by the Services should not be as good as that under the General Nursing Council, but it would be much better if the Services had to adopt the same standard as is laid down by the General Nursing Council. I see no reason why the Services should not be prepared to accept the Amendment. They do accept the principle in respect of other professional bodies. No one would suggest that doctors or barristers who have been trained by the Army should be let loose upon the country. They accept the ordinary professional standards for doctors and for the legal profession, and I see no reason why they should not accept the ordinary standards for the nursing profession as well.

Dr. Haden Guest: I very much hope that the Committee will not accept the


Amendment, because it seems to be quite unnecessary, in my view, to attempt to exclude those who are trained in the Navy or in the Army or in the Air Force under conditions which are excellent, the standard of which, as far as the details go, could be decided in the future by consultation. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment spoke of the different point of view in the Services with regard to the patient. He said that the Services want to get the patient well as rapidly as possible so that he can return to his duty. I hope that he does not regard it as a disadvantage in the nursing service that they should aim at getting a patient well as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Linstead: If the hon. Member would put the other half of my argument, I might be prepared to agree with him. I said that that was the first thing to do, but if they recognise that they cannot do that, they desire to discharge the man to a civilian hospital, and that has an effect on the experience of their staff.

Dr. Guest: There might be a certain degree of relevance in that argument but only to a limited extent. I have the advantage over the hon. Member of having had a large amount of experience in Army work and in also having had the experience, which does not often come to one who is not in the Navy himself, of being nursed during a very serious illness by naval sick bay attendants. When I was on a voyage to South Africa many years ago I contracted enteric fever on the way, and I have always been grateful to the naval sick bay service since that time. The naval training is a training for men to do this work of nursing the sick under peace-time conditions as well as under war-time conditions. They are in the Service for a long time. Their training is a very good one, and there is no doubt whatever that their standards are very good and certainly are not to be dismissed in the way which the hon. Member wishes to dismiss them. As I know from personal experience, it is also true in the Army. Of the Air Force I have no experience, but there is no reason whatever to suppose that their nursing training is not as good.
I think that from a professional point of view the hon. Member was quite wrong when he said that the training of

nurses in the Navy, Army and Air Force is not of a kind to fit them for work in civil life. I think it is, and I think it would be in the highest degree unfortunate if we agreed to exclude those men. For one thing, they will form a valuable addition to our nursing services after the war when many, I hope, will be on the register. It will also produce a very bad impression at the present time if we express the opinion that the standard of male nursing in the Services is so bad that it is not fit to be applied to the civilian population. I hope the Committee will reject this Amendment.

Miss Horsbrugh: I think the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment was anxious to see that there should be a high standard of training for those who are trained in the Services and those who are trained in civilian hospitals. With that we are all in agreement. The words in this Bill are the same as in the principal Act and lay down that the General Nursing Council have to prescribe the training which the applicant has to undergo. The difficulty the hon. Member has pointed out is that applicants have no approved institution in which that can take place. The main reason for that is that in the Services a person who is training for a nurse or assistant nurse cannot, in most cases, remain in the same place; he has to move about. It is laid down that for civilian hospitals a person who takes training remains there or in hospitals affiliated, and that institution has to be approved. This scheme has been working for registered nurses for 25 years, and the General Council seem satisfied with the arrangement. We have had no complaints about it, and because of the difficulty of recognising the particular institution I think the hon. Member may like to withdraw his Amendment. I can assure him that the training prescribed by the General Nursing Council must come up to the standard the Council lays down.

Mr. Linstead: In view of the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but, before doing so, I would like to say a word or two about the argument which the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest) kindly put into my mouth, but which did not exactly present the argument that I presented to the Committee. I would like to make it


clear that I was not criticising the standard of the training which people in the Forces might receive, but the comprehensiveness of it. I think in the matter of gynæocology or the nursing of the chronic sick it is extremely unlikely that a person in the Forces will receive a more comprehensive training than a person in a civilian hospital.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir F. Fremantle: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, after "Council", to insert:
after yearly consultation with the General Nursing Council".
I do not want to take up much time with this Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary said that approval of the institutions of the Fighting Services has been satisfactory for 25 years to the General Nursing Council, but I do not think we can necessarily say that there is not room for improvement. In view of what has already been said by the Minister and the desire that the General Nursing Council shall be the supreme master or mistress of the enrolled nurses, as well as State registered nurses, here is a loophole by means of which they could be accepted. Institutions are as important as the syllabuses of training, in fact, more important. I am not satisfied with the idea that the institutions of the Navy, Army, and Air Force can always and in all circumstances be trusted to keep up a proper standard of training. The General Medical Council is responsible for training institutions and the examinations for which that training is given. I suggest that by the Amendment here is an opportunity, without hindering co-operation, for sick-bay stewards and sick orderlies of the Forces to come into this Bill as assistant nurses. It would be an advantage if the Services were required to consult the General Nursing Council on the subject.

Mr. E. Brown: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment, partly because of the argument used by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and partly because I have had no complaints about this from the General Nursing Council. They have not asked for any amendment of the rules, which have worked satisfactorily. The point my hon. Friend seemed to make would be covered by the original law and by the Bill now before us, because the General Nursing

Council have control of the training, and if they were not satisfied would not pass the trainee. It is clear that all kinds of vistas would be opened out as a possible result of passing such an innocent-looking Amendment, and since I never care to do that, I hope my hon. Friend will not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hammersley: I beg to move, in page 2, line 37, at the end, to insert:
and (d) taking into account the qualification of persons certified in other parts of His Majesty's Dominions.
I think I can explain the purpose of this Amendment in a few words. The Bill proposes to set up a new status for assistant nurses, and when it comes into effect a person who cannot obtain a position on the roll of assistant nurses will be greatly disqualified. My Amendment is to provide that qualified persons who have received their qualifications in other parts of the British Empire than in this country, and who proceed to this country in the hope of carrying out their livelihood, should have facilities for entrance on the roll. I cannot give the Committee a precise example of injustice, because the Bill has not yet become law, but I can proceed by analogy in the case of midwives——

The Deputy-Chairman: Midwives are quite outside the scope of this Bill, and the hon. Member must not give them as an illustration, or anything else.

Mr. Hammersley: Then without mentioning the word "midwife" I will give an illustration of an analogous associated occupation——

The Deputy-Chairman: No, the hon. Member cannot do that either.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. If the hon. Member is labouring, Mr. Williams, is he not entitled to bring in a midwife?

The Deputy-Chairman: Not here.

Mr. Hammersley: I think I can overcome the difficulty by taking an imaginary case of a person who is qualified in India and proceeds to this country. It may be that qualification in that country is not up to the standard in this country, and it is quite right that in order to be qualified here the person


should receive some additional training. I want to make sure that the previous training the imaginary person has received, and the large amount of practice that that imaginary person has had over a serious of years, will be taken into consideration when the Council are drawing up their regulations.

Mr. Linstead: I would like to support the general principle embodied in this Amendment, from this point of view. When this war is over surely we want to do everything we can to encourage the free movement of people within the British Empire. Anything that will enable people from this country to practise their profession or calling elsewhere in the Empire and vice versa is something upon which we should look favourably. I am, however, wondering whether the precise words of this Amendment will cover the point. I think it should be on a reciprocity basis.

Miss Horsbrugh: I would ask the Committee not to accept this Amendment, for the reason that at the present time there is no standard of assistant nursing in any of the Dominions or, so far as I know, anywhere else. There is, however, a scheme of reciprocity for State registered nurses, and if the hon. Member will look at Sections 6 (1) and 6 (2) of the principal Act he will see that it is possible to have reciprocity when it has been duly authorised. In various Provinces in Canada, in South Australia, West Australia, New Zealand and Bombay there is reciprocity with the duly registered nurse. The duly registered nurse in those places has reciprocity with our nurses, but there is no register or roll of assistant nurses in those places. We cannot have reciprocity for assistant nurses, but that does not mean that someone coming to this country with qualifications would be ruled out. In Subsection (2, c) the hon. Member will see that the General Nursing Council have power to take account of what experience the applicant has. I know the particular difficulty the hon. Member tried to refer to—and which it would not be in Order for me, like himself, to refer to—but I can assure him that for people who have had some form of training and have done some work as nurses It would not be beyond the power of the General

Nursing Council to give them the status of assistant nurse. Actual reciprocity is at present confined to State registered nurses.

Mr. Hammersley: Having regard to that explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(The Assistant Nurses Committee.)

The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Burden.

Mr. E. Brown: On a point of Order, Mr. Williams. Would it be convenient, according to the Ruling you gave, to consider at the same time as the Amendment which the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) is about to move, his Amendment to Schedule 1, page 11, line 24, to leave out "appointed by the Council," and to insert
two nominated by the County Council's Association, two nominated by the Association of Municipal Corporations and two by the General Nursing Council"?

The Deputy-Chairman: That can be done if the hon. Member agrees.

Mr. Burden: I beg to move, in page 3, line 6, to leave out "of the Council."
I will discuss together this Amendment and the Amendment to Schedule 1 in my name to which the Minister referred. I do not propose to go over again the arguments that I submitted in the Second Reading Debate. The purpose of these Amendments is to limit the responsibility of the General Nursing Council in prescribing the training, its duration, the institutions at which it may be given, and the conduct of the examinations. Frankly, I am afraid that if these matters are left entirely in the hands of the General Nursing Council, that body may adopt the somewhat restrictive methods which now operate. There is at the present time an acute shortage of nurses, both State registered and assistant, but notwithstanding, many hospitals with training schools have very long waiting lists and many months have to elapse before an applicant for training is admitted. In addition, many of the training schools have very high entrance fees. I am very apprehensive that the General Nursing Council may apply these some-


what restrictive methods to assistant nurses. This problem by and large is a problem of the public hospitals, and I submit it is very necessary to bring on to the Committee the experience of those associated with the work of these hospitals. I submit to the Minister that he now has a very real opportunity of applying the principles of Whitleyism in regard to this Committee. I urge the Minister to make a new approach to the problem and to give to the representatives from the employing side—the County Councils' Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations—together with the representatives of the General Nursing Council and of the assistant nurses, an opportunity to get down to these many problems in a spirit of good will and cooperation. I am sure that if the difficulties that at present obtain are approached in this way it will help considerably in solving those problems which this Bill is a very real attempt to meet.

Mr. E. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Member for not going over the ground he so fully and admirably covered in making clear his point of view in the Second Reading Debate. I had read his Amendments against the background of that speech. The hon. Member will understand that I do not share his views about the General Nursing Council, and I do not think the Committee as a whole shares them. It is, of course, a fundamental part of the Bill that the General Nursing Council shall be responsible for keeping the roll as well as the register under the principal Act. It would be impossible for me to set up an Assistant Nurses Committee under this Bill on which the General Nursing Council had not its own adequate representation. However, I would like the hon. Member and the Committee to note two things. The first is that one of the members appointed by the General Nursing Council must be a person other than a registered nurse. If the hon. Member holds the view that the wrong people are on the General Nursing Council, that is not a matter either for him or me, except in so far as he may desire to influence the great body of nurses who by postal ballot elect the Council. The second thing is that, since there are yet no assistant nurses, I have to appoint representatives for them on the Committee. I shall have full regard to the knowledge and experience of bodies

outside the General Nursing Council, in making the appointments. Perhaps with that assurance the hon. Member will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment, although I know he feels strongly about the matter.

Mr. Burden: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ammon: I intervene only to ask for an assurance from the Minister, because I gather there is some dubiety in some quarters concerning the interpretation of the term "assistant nurse" and also the composition of the Committee. For instance, I have received from Bangor, County Down, the following telegram:
Hope you will obtain Government assurance that the definition of assistant nurse will be as Rushcliffe Report.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the majority of assistant nurses are in the employment of public authorities. There is a little fear in some quarters that the Committee to be appointed may be overweighted with people from the voluntary hospitals who will rather want voluntary hospital training. I would like to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no bias in that direction, and, although I do not feel much doubt about this myself, that the fears of the person who sent the telegram I have read are groundless.

Miss Horsbrugh: I think I can give that assurance to the correspondent of the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon). It is clearly laid down in the Bill that the training will have to be approved by the General Nursing Council, and although the hon. Member's correspondent fears that the people from the voluntary hospitals might have too much say in what the training should be and where it should take place, I think she will be reassured by a study of the Report of the Nurses Reconstruction Committee, from which she will see it is very clearly understood by them what type of training will be required for assistant nurses, the majority of whom, it is realised, are working in municipal hospitals.

Mr. Gledhill: We are told in the Explanatory Memorandum that


the assistant nurses will be represented on the Committee and that matters mainly concerning assistant nurses are to be referred to it. Is there provision for the complaints and grievances of nurses, either individually or collectively, to go to the Committee? As hon. Members know, nurses work under very strict discipline and this produces a number of complaints and grievances which do not always get to the ears of the competent authorities. Would it not be possible to provide under this Clause for nurses, individually or collectively, to send forward their grievances and complaints and have them investigated?

Mr. E. Brown: I am glad the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Gledhill) has raised that point. Complaints are now made to the Registrar of the General Nursing Council, and the same thing would apply here. All things wholly or mainly affecting assistant nurses must first go to the Assistant Nurses Committee.

Mr. Gledhill: May I point out that I was asking whether they could go direct to the Committee and not necessarily to the hospital authorities and the General Nursing Council?

Mr. Brown: I did not understand that the hon. Member was referring to complaints about the working of the hospitals. I was referring to complaints affecting the duties and responsibilities of the General Nursing Council and the machinery devised for carrying out that work.

Mr. Messer: Is not this the position? There will be set up a constitution for the Nurses Committee and according to that constitution there will be referred to the Committee such things as the General Nursing Council decide are questions that can be dealt with by the Committee. They will have certain responsibilities and certain authority and will be able to deal with certain aspects of the work, because the General Nursing Council itself will decide that.

Mr. Brown: In addition, all things wholly or mainly affecting assistant nurses must go to that body.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Fees.)

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 3, line 35, at the end, to insert:
Provided always that such fees shall not be more than 75 per cent. of the amount paid by the State Registered Nurse.
I move this Amendment to draw attention to the principle of registration in general and in particular to the difference between assistant nurses and State registered nurses.

Mr. E. Brown: On a point of Order, Mr. Williams. Would it be convenient to discuss together this Amendment and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest)—in line 40, to leave out from "determine" to the end of paragraph (b)?

The Deputy Chairman: Yes, if that is agreeable to the Committee.

Mr. Messer: I think it would be convenient to discuss both Amendments together. I want, in the first place, to draw attention to the differences that exist between the system of registration in the medical profession and in the nursing profession. In the medical profession, as soon as persons are qualified, they pay a registration fee, and after making that payment they are on the register until for some reason the General Medical Council itself removes them from the register, and they are then no longer registered medical practitioners. I cannot understand why the Ministry of Health—for I know this is the official view of the Ministry—consider that there should be a different principle for nurses and that every year every nurse throughout the country should have to find the annual registration fee of 2s. or 2s. 6d., buy a postal order, and post it. If she does not do that, she will be in danger of being taken off the register. I do not want to develop that matter too much, but simply to draw attention to it, for there may be a whole series of reasons why a nurse might omit to get the postal order and send it off.
With regard to the other point raised by the Amendment, strangely enough I have been approached by State registered nurses who fear that they are to be too closely identified with assistant nurses. There is a great deal of snobbery still in the nursing profession. In the hospitals one sees how a student nurse just in is treated by a junior and how she makes up her mind what is to happen to the


student nurses when she herself becomes a junior nurse, and how, when she becomes a staff nurse, she takes it out of the junior nurses, because at one time the same thing has been done to her. If you saw sisters walking together—they will not walk with nurses—you would realise that there is a great need for democratising the nursing profession. I am not blaming the nurses for that. Their outlook is determined by their environment, and their environment during training has been of the old aristocratic type, which has created a caste position in the nursing profession which has been outlived in almost every other. State registered nurses say they do not mind paying more for their registration than assistant nurses, because it will mark a distinction. I am not influenced to a great extent by that, but I feel that the expense of keeping the roll is not going to be so great as the expense of keeping the register, and I think there is a case for a difference in the amount of fee as between assistant and State registered nurses. I feel that, if you were to abolish the annual fee and have a comprehensive fee as soon as they become qualified and are able to go on the register to last throughout their career, the principle may still apply that the assistant nurse shall only pay an agreed proportion of what is paid by the State registered nurse.

Dr. Haden Guest: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the parallel between registration in the case of the nursing profession and in the case of the medical profession. I am sure that, if it were necessary for doctors to send an annual fee, there would be a very large number of lapses every year owing to forgetful-ness, and I see no reason to think that a considerable number of nurses also would not forget. It seems to me a rather unfortunate provision that, in order to maintain a nurse's name on this roll, it should be necessary to send a postal order every year. Surely there is a very large amount of work involved in sending reminders and receipts and an unnecessary amount of paper work for a very small financial gain. It would be very much simpler to have one fee and allow the name to remain until the nurse retires and voluntarily withdraws her name, or dies, or, unfortunately, commits some professional misconduct. The powers of the General Medical Council in regard to offences

against professional etiquette by doctors are a very valuable function, and similar powers exercised in respect of nurses would also be very valuable. If a nurse knows she has done something that she ought not to have done, and it is brought before the Council, and she omits to pay her subscription, any possibility of disciplinary action falls to the ground. It will be in practice very difficult to discriminate between those who are on the roll and those who are not, because of the large numbers. I do not mean difficult for the Council but for doctors, for nursing homes and for private people who employ nurses. Once a nurse's name is on the roll it should remain, whether she pays an annual subscription or not, if she is considered fit to carry out nursing duties as defined.

Sir F. Fremantle: The medical register is almost useless. The real register which is useful is the medical directory. The register is a dead register. A name once on it remains until somehow, by chance, the medical registry happens to hear that an individual has died or has absconded. As the result of its being so necessary to keep a live register, a medical directory has been started, which is a live register requiring re-entry every other year or, anyhow, after two or three years, if one does not return the form, the name is erased. It is a commercial venture. We ought to keep a live register, and a small fee is rather a useful reminder to enrolled nurses that they are getting something which is very valuable to themselves. The hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) started us on the delightful possibilities of an argument about snobbery. Perhaps he has not hunted with a pack of hounds or had a rich herd of cattle, but you find that hounds are snobs and cattle are snobs. Trade unions have snobbery. Snobbery is innate in human nature.

Mr. E. Brown: I could not accept the Amendment. It is quite unnecessary, because the fees have to be approved by the Minister, so there is Ministerial control there. Also they have to be fixed with due regard to the services that are being performed on behalf of the assistant nurses, and to prescribe that the fee is to bear a fixed relation to the fees prescribed in the principal Act would seem to be awkward and cumbrous, because,


if an alteration were made in the fees payable under the principal Act, you would automatically have to alter it if you were bound by the words of the Amendment. I was in some doubt what was behind the Amendment, but it would only have this effect that, instead of the General Nursing Council charging a maximum fee of 2s. 6d. a year, they would be able to charge an unlimited fee, and I am sure my hon. Friend did not mean that. The present fee is 2s., and it is the price paid for a live register. It gives doctors the latest information about nurses, and this is a small price to pay for it. I will not be drawn into the question of snobbery, but I think my hon. Friend, on reflection, would prefer to have said that members of the nursing profession are members of a disciplined force. They are on parade, they are well disciplined and trained, and they have such fine innate qualities that they have stood the worst that Hitler has given us.

Dr. Haden Guest: What would be the position of a nurse who failed to pay her 2s. in any year? Perhaps she marries and does not want to nurse but her husband dies and she wishes to return. What arrangement is made?

Mr. Brown: She pays a small fine and pays up her subscriptions. If there is a mishap in the course of a year, at least two notices are sent before any action is taken.

Sir A. Maitland: The case of a doctor and that of a nurse are not parallel. A doctor is a professional man, and it is his business that it should be known that he is in practice. In the case of an assistant nurse there is not the same necessity for a live register. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have another look at this before the Report stage.

Mr. McEntee: What would happen if an assistant nurse who failed to pay her fee was found, say six months after, actually practising? Would she be liable to punishment of any kind?

Mr. Brown: She would be subject to the penalties of the Act, and that is one of the reasons why we are passing it.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment moved: In page 3, line 40, to leave out from "determine ", to the

end of paragraph (b).—[Dr. Haden Guest.]

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Restriction on use of title of nurse and assistant nurse and penalties for misuse of certificates and falsification.)

Mr. Linstead: I beg to move, in page 4, line 21, after "nurse," to insert:
tends or holds himself out as tending for reward a sick person.
In moving this Amendment, I want to raise the general question whether this Bill does sufficient for the enrolled nurse upon whom we are imposing rather substantial conditions. It seems to me that an Amendment of this sort is consequential upon the other provisions of the Bill. We are taking a class of the community and requiring them to do training, pass examinations, go on to a statutory roll and subject themselves to a certain amount of discipline. In return for that, we are offering them very little except the protection of their title of assistant nurse. Looking at it from the point of view of the assistant nurses, is it justice to them that they should put themselves under these disadvantages and receive practically no protection against competition by persons who have not undergone the same type of training and have not become registered? This will become important when the war is over, when we may have a substantial number of nursing orderlies and similar types of people discharged from the Services. One hopes that a large proportion will be able to get enrolled and consequently come under the authority of the General Nursing Council and become incorporated in the profession of nursing. We shall undoubtedly have a large number of people who served in the Royal Army Medical Corps, for example, who will not qualify for registration or enrolment and who will be on the flanks of the nursing profession, possibly competing against the people whom we are now putting under control.
Looking at it from the broader point of view of public interest, it is important that the public should know by means of


reference to the roll or the register whether a person is a registered nurse, and if anybody is pretending to have qualifications which he does not possess, there should be some remedy which would enable him to be prosecuted and so prevent him from misleading the public. That is the general principle involved in the Amendment, which will make it illegal for somebody who is not enrolled or registered to tend or hold himself out as tending for reward a sick person. The object of the words "for reward" is to exclude from the provision people who do nursing by way of looking after their relatives and in many other charitable ways, but merely to deal with the person who is making money on the appearance of qualifications which they do not possess.

Mr. Messer: I do not know whether the hon. Member realises how wide his Amendment goes. It is understandable that anybody who calls himself a nurse and implies that he has qualifications which enable him to care for people as a nurse is a fraud. There are, however, large numbers of people who call themselves nature cure doctors and run hospitals. They take patients in, and there are people who look after them who do not call themselves nurses. Ought we to say that these patients should not be looked after by anybody who is not a nurse, and that if there are members of the public who have a belief in these things, they should not be able to exercise that belief? I have a lot of sympathy with cranks, and I would not rob these people of the psychological value to them of belief in such cures, however unorthodox they may be. The Amendment does not say that somebody who calls himself a nurse will be subject to penalty, but that anybody who does the work that would normally be done by a nurse would come under it. That would be wrong, because we have not done it with the medical profession. We allow a man who is not a doctor to treat people, but the Amendment proposes that we should not allow a layman to nurse even though he does not describe himself as a nurse.

Mr. E. Brown: My hon. Friend has raised an important issue, to which the nursing profession attach tremendous importance. When my hon. Friend talked about competition in years to come he in-

dicated what was in his mind, namely, that he was in sympathy with the desire which was discussed at great length by the Athlone Committee and reserved for consideration that the nursing profession should be a closed one. In this Bill I have gone as far as I think I reasonably can in a practical form to meet the feelings of the profession, which I fully understand. I think that I have achieved the main object I had in view, namely, that everybody should have a chance of distinguishing between the qualified and the unqualified person. I could not accept the words of the Amendment, because there is a serious objection to the form of words. The word "tend" is very vague and might cover anything from nursing proper to general care. Even if the word "nurse" were used in place of "tend," that, too, would be vague. There is no recognised meaning of "tending the sick" or "nursing the sick." Unless there could be some much more close definition of what tending or nursing means, it would be difficult to make it an offence for anybody to tend or nurse for gain. I sympathise with the feelings of the nursing profession about the matter, but they must rest on my assurance that I am sure I have gone as far as I can in present circumstances to meet their desires as expressed not only before the Athlone Committee but elsewhere in the House and outside.

Mr. Linstead: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, after "nurse," to insert:
provided it is preceded by the word 'children's'.
After putting the Amendment down, I realised that it did not convey all that I wanted. My view is that this Sub-section still leaves a big loophole. What it says in effect is that a children's nurse can describe herself as a nurse, but what is meant by "children's nurse"? There is the sick children's nurse, who has underdone a period of training and is on the register. The Sub-section provides an opportunity for persons who intend to deceive. We want to avoid the confusion that is likely to arise between what I would describe as a nursery nurse and a sick children's nurse, and I am asking that a children's nurse shall only describe


herself as a nurse when the word is preceded by the word "children's."

Miss Horsbrugh: We cannot recommend the Committee to accept this Amendment. It is suggested that the word "nurse" ought not to be used unless it is preceded by the word "children's" because otherwise she might be thought to be a registered or enrolled nurse. The word "nurse" has been used for a children's nurse for a long time, and the "nanny" is a British institution. I am sure that neither in this Bill nor by anything else could we take away from the "nanny" the idea that she is a person who looks after children. I believe that the full title of the nurse who attends the sick will be as it is now, registered nurse. If we were to lay it down that no children's nurse should call herself a nurse but would always have to have the prefix "children's," there would be great difficulty. In the Bill we have two sections, registered and enrolled nurses, and it is clear that if a person in some way gives out that she is something other than a children's nurse, she would be committing an offence. We can look upon the designations as registered nurse, enrolled nurse and then the nurse who is the children's nurse. I do not think the hon. Gentleman need have much fear of any difficulty and I think that he will agree that a children's nurse is traditional in this country, that she has a good many friends, and that they would not like that title taken away from her.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Storey: I beg to move, in page 5, line 4, to leave out the second "or."
This Amendment and my next Amendment are designed to prevent less reputable nursing homes taking advantage of what I believe to be a loophole in paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1), which provides that:
a person shall not be guilty of an offence under this subsection by reason only that, without objection by him, other persons use the word nurse in addressing or referring to him.
That Sub-section might give the less reputable nursing home the opportunity of dressing up an unqualified person as a nurse and allowing her to have the care of patients. Unless the patients or relatives challenged the bona fides of such a person, no offence would be committed under the Bill. The Amendment is an

attempt to strengthen the Bill so as to improve the staffing of our nursing homes, and I hope the Minister may see his way open to accept it.

Miss Horsbrugh: We all recognise the difficulty, or the danger, to which the hon. Member has referred, but the wording of the Amendment would not do what is required. If the hon. Members who have put down this Amendment will withdraw it, we will see in discussions with them whether any form of words which would meet their point can be devised, and an Amendment could be put down when the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Storey: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Frankel: Paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) says:
the Minister may by regulations authorise the use, either generally or by specified classes of persons or in specified circumstances, of specified names or titles containing the word nurse or of the word nurse otherwise qualified in accordance with the regulations;
In the Second Reading Debate I made a few comments upon this part of the Clause. I said that I should not be very critical about the other exceptions until I heard what they were, but that we were not at all certain about the matter, and that I would like an assurance from the Minister that before issuing regulations under paragraph (b) he would consult the associations of local authorities who are concerned with these matters. In the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill it is mentioned that there are mental nurses and that they might be excepted, and there are also those who have taken the Diploma of the Royal Medico-Psychological Association. There are also assistant nurses who are undergoing training for mental nurses, and assistant nurses in that capacity might be excepted. I only reiterate that in my view the local authorities concerned ought to be consulted by the Minister when the exceptions are drawn up.

Mr. Brooke: The passage in this Clause to which the hon. Member has referred is one of the controversial points in the Bill, so far as it is a controversial Measure at all, and the Minister


has it in his power to help to increase the general good will felt towards the Bill in this Committee and outside by being as specific as he can on this occasion about his intentions in making the regulations which he is to be empowered to make. A number of classes of people at present feel in doubt about their position. To take one instance, there are the women well known throughout the country as village nurse midwives. At this moment there are about 2,000 of them practising in country districts. They have all been accustomed for long periods of time to use the word "nurse" in their title. We are giving the Minister complete power to allow or to forbid the use of the word "nurse." It is an important thing that these women, if they are permitted to continue to practise, should also be allowed to use a name which the village will understand.

Mr. Messer: Hon. Members have no doubt received a circular letter in regard to a type of nurse known as a dental nurse. I did not know that dental nurses underwent a special course of training, but attention ought to be drawn to the fact that there are nurses who specialise in one particular form of nursing, and when the Minister decides which nurses can be allowed to use the title "nurse" I hope he will bear them in mind, and not come to a decision merely in relation to the need for protecting general nurses. We are dealing with enrolled assistant nurses. It has always seemed a strange thing that tuberculosis nurses can never get beyond the supplementary register. I hope the Minister will consider their case, because that training certainly entitles them to some recognition higher than the supplementary register.

Mr. McEntee: Like my hon. Friend, I had never heard of dental nurses until I received these circular letters. I have received quite a few, not only from dental nurses but also from qualified and registered surgeon dentists and they assure me that it is essential for their work that they should have somebody carrying out the duties of a dental nurse. One dentist said that for many years he had had a dental nurse who had always called herself a dental nurse and that he felt it would be a hardship upon her and might at the same time inspire less confidence in patients if she was refused the designation of nurse. I hope that the Minister

will not take away from these nurses the right to use a title which, I am told, they have used for many years.

Miss Horsbrugh: My right hon. Friend will certainly consult with local authorities and with other bodies concerned with nurses of various sorts such as we have been discussing. I think the Committee will agree that the very fact that some of those who are calling themselves nurses have been heard of by hon. Members for the first time shows how wise it was not to put a list in the Bill but to take power to look into the subject and to see what nurses should have permission to call themselves nurses. The hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) has drawn attention to tuberculosis nurses. It is clear that many nurses of that sort should be allowed to call themselves nurses. There may be various categories of persons who are using the word "nurse" whose claims to do so will have to be examined. In answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) the village nurse midwife might, of course, be able to go on the roll of assistant nurses. He will see under paragraph (c) of Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 what is required of her to be an enrolled assistant nurse in addition to having the title of midwife. All these cases will be looked into, and in the case of those who cannot come within the designation of enrolled assistant nurse the matter will be taken up to see whether they should not be put in a list of those who may use the word "nurse."

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 7—(Conduct of agencies for supply of nurses.)

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 5, line 33, at the end, to add:
and shall furnish each year an animal financial return to the local licensing authority.
This is not an Amendment which I feel requires any words from me. I should imagine that the Minister immediately he saw it decided that he would accept it.

Mr. E. Brown: I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment. It is quite unnecessary. All who have been responsible for Bills know that it is a very dangerous thing to insert unnecessary words into a Bill. Under Clause 9 duly authorised officers may at all reasonable times enter


the premises of an agency for the supply of nurses and inspect the records kept by that agency. Under Clause 7 an agency must keep such records as are prescribed by the Minister, and it is my intention to prescribe that the records shall include a record of the fees charged in each case. Therefore, there does not appear to be any reason for requiring the agency to send in a special financial statement.

Mr. Messer: If the Minister says that he is going to prescribe what is in my Amendment he has accepted the Amendment and I thank him. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Licensing of agencies.)

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 6, line 9, at the end, to insert:
including conditions as to the fees to be charged by the person carrying on the agency, whether to the nurses or other persons supplied, or to the persons to whom they are supplied.
I understand that this Amendment is acceptable to the Minister, and therefore there is no need for me to attempt to explain it.

Mr. E. Brown: We have tried to appreciate the various points covered by this and analogous Amendments, and I have great pleasure in accepting it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 6, line 14, after "is," insert "an individual."

In page 7, line 10, leave out "date of the next such annual meeting," and insert:
thirty-first day of December in the year next following that in which the licence is granted."—[Mr. Ammon.]

Mr. Ammon: I beg to move, in page 7, line 14, at the end, to insert:
(7) The licensing authority shall immediately on the grant, revocation or refusal of a licence under this Part of this Act transmit to the Minister such particulars of the grant, revocation or refusal as may be prescribed and such particulars shall be open to inspection by any licensing authority.
I am not so sure that the Minister is going to jump to my aid on this Amendment. Those who were present during the Second Reading Debate will be aware that

by hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Frankel) and I raised the necessity for taking some precautions to see that if a person was for any reason removed from the register it would not be possible for him to go over the border into the area of another authority and set up business again. That has already happened under the Theatrical Employers Registration Act and the War Charities Act, and it would invalidate this Measure if such a thing were possible. I hope that my Amendment may be accepted or that I may get some assurance from the Minister.

Mr. E. Brown: As I said to the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) I cannot accept the Amendment because I think the words are unnecessary. I will make a short statement which I feel will give my hon. Friend the assurance he desires. I have power already under Section 284 of the Local Government Act, 1933, and Section 174 of the London Government Act, 1939, to require all local authorities to submit reports and returns, and I propose to use this power to require licensing authorities to notify me of any decision to refuse or revoke a licence, with the reasons. I also propose to circulate to all licensing authorities a "black list" of persons to whom licences have been refused or whose licences have been revoked. The hon. Member will see that the purpose of his Amendment has been met, and I think in a more practicable form.

Mr. Ammon: In view of that statement I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McEntee: I hope the Minister does not propose to depart from his accepting mood, because I want to raise a matter which is of some importance to some local authorities. Clause 8 (1) says:
The expression" licensing authority" means, in relation to the City of London, the Common Council, in relation to the remainder of the administrative county of London, the London County Council, and in relation to any other county or any county borough, the council of that county or borough.
Under the Essex County Council Act, 1933, the licensing for all employment agencies was placed under the control of


that council, but a Clause was inserted which gave power to certain boroughs to require the Essex County Council to delegate their powers and duties in regard to the licensing of those agencies.

Mr. E. Brown: On a point of Order. In order to save discussion may I say that I think the point being raised by the hon. Member is covered by a new Clause which is proposed in the name of another hon. Member?

The Chairman (Major Milner): If that is so, perhaps the hon. Member will raise his point on the new Clause.

Mr. McEntee: If necessary.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Penalties.)

Amendment made: In page 8, line 34, at the end, add:
(7) Where any offence against this Part of this Act by a corporation is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the corporation, he, as well as the corporation, shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."—[Mr. Ammon.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 13 (Sister tutors.)

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 9, line 34, at the end, to add:
Such persons shall be known as nursing teachers and shall include male and female.
In some quarters I have been given credit for knowing English, but I should never be satisfied as to the correct designation of what is now known as a sister tutor that would include both male and female. In the nursing profession various training schools have decided upon "sister tutor." The Royal College of Nursing grants a certificate for what it terms a "nursing tutor." If these authorities are unable to find a euphemistic term acceptable to nurses and describing them satisfactorily, I feel no shame in confessing my bankruptcy in this respect, and I ask the Minister to consider the

difficulties of the position. The sister tutor is so termed not because that officer is a woman but because there is an office or grade of nurse which has arrived at the position of sister. There are no brothers among the male nurses, notwithstanding that an hon. Lady said previously that she knew of at least one. There are many male teachers of nurses. If we are to tidy up this matter we must try to do the job properly.
If there are men engaged in teaching, why should we not have a recognised term and, instead of a nurse-teacher's certificate being issued by one body and an assistant-teacher's diploma by another, say that there shall be one type of examination and one title, which shall include both male and female? I hope that the reasonableness of this suggestion may be seen. I do not know whether the world is undergoing a side-slip, but the masculine gender is losing its superiority. A mere male can never attain to the dignity of the female in some cases. You cannot have a male nurse on the register. He is on the supplementary register. I consider that is unfair. True, he may not study gynæcology or obstetrics, but he would if you would let him. He qualifies in accordance with what is required and attains the standard which has been laid down. If he does that, why should he not be given the same status as is given to a woman? In some cases the male nurse studies, to a greater degree than the female, genito-urinary diseases. My idea is to simplify this designation and get a term sufficiently comprehensive to indicate that the teacher has reached a required status. In our legislation we always use the language of the masculine gender to include the feminine. We need a term which is sufficiently descriptive. I am not wedded to my phraseology, and I hope that the Minister will give his attention to the matter. Many male nurses feel that they are entitled to the position they have attained. I hope we can get some encouragement from the Minister on this point.

Miss Horsbrugh: I would like to assure the hon. Gentleman that there is complete equality between male and female teachers. If he will look at Clause 13, he will see that there is no difference between men and women. The marginal note only says: "Sister tutors." We are suggesting that the marginal note should be, "Qualifications for the teaching of nurs-


ing." Once we get that into the marginal note the difficulty will be overcome. There is nothing in the Clause to suggest difference between male and female teachers. When the wording is the same for both, it would be a pity to decide here and now by Act of Parliament what a person is to be called. If the hon. Member will agree to withdraw his Amendment, the change will be made in the marginal note, and there will then be nothing laid down by Act of Parliament as to what the teacher is to be called.

Mr. Messer: It has been my weakness in life that I have been unable to resist responding to the blandishments of the ladies. In this instance I must agree, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdraw.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 15—(List of certain nurses not registered or enrolled.)

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 10, line 8, to leave out "form and keep a list."
I wonder, Major Milner, whether you would permit this Amendment and the next—in line 10, after "Act," to insert: "cause to be entered on the general register the names "—to be discussed together, as the subject matter is the same.

The Chairman: If the Committee are prepared to agree, I think that would be a convenient course.

Mr. Messer: This is the most important Amendment I have down to-day. I want to argue it first of all upon its morality. In 1919, under Dr. Addison, as he then was, as Minister of Health, the register was open. Nurses who had passed the prescribed examinations and had attained the qualifications were given a period within which to get on to the register. Some failed to take advantage of the provisions of the Act and never became State registered nurses. One can easily imagine many reasons why that should have happened. In 1919 a large number of nurses were out of the country. Many got married and thought they would never want to take up the profession again. Others found a place in industrial or commercial undertakings. For various reasons

many of them came back into the profession and found themselves unable to use the term "State registered nurse," although they possessed all the qualifications. The importance of being on the State register is recognised by everybody who has read the Rushcliffe Committee's Report. I would like the Committee to be satisfied, on the ground of the equity and the justice of the claim, that no one would be injured by a qualified woman being put on the register. I know that the Ministry of Health has taken the line that the register is closed to them and why should the Minister keep on opening it, but in this situation we can afford to be generous. It is easy to argue that you should permit this class of nurse to come on the register.
Next I argue on the ground of expediency. In the Bill there are to be the State register, a supplementary register, a roll and a list. If we can reduce them by one, it will be a good thing. Rubbing that list out would be a good thing, because these people are a dying quantity, and in the process of time they will go out of existence. The list at the moment is nothing more than a device to prevent qualified nurses from losing their title of "nurse." People will only be called "nurse" in certain conditions, and these people would be left out who have not registered unless they were on this list. I am not so sure that getting this type of nurse on the list will not do more harm than good to her and that we are not, by Act of Parliament, proposing to stigmatise her as occupying an inferior position. When you want to appoint a high nursing officer you look at the "Nursing Times" or at any of the nursing papers, where the advertisements always say "State registered nurse." You cannot get these highly qualified women—some of them have specialised in certain departments of nursing—because we have decided that the State registration is the qualification that must be obtained. You have not got too wide a field from which to choose, especially in war-time. There is every reason why you should widen that field.
I suggest that on the grounds of expediency it would be a wise thing to give these nurses a chance to get on to the register. I have looked at this thing from every standpoint. I have argued it with Ministry officials, and I have not yet found a valid argument against it. What I have found is that the General Nursing Council does not like it, that the General


Nursing Council is opposed to the reopening of the register. If I appeared to be critical of the General Nursing Council on a previous Amendment, that was due to the fact of the rigid attitude they had adopted in regard to this matter. Some of these nurses went through almost as bad a time in the last war as these nurses are going through now. Many of them did not get on the register through the fact of that war. It would be an act of justice and certainly an act of statesmanship of great help to those who take an interest in this work, and are administering the work, and who want all the help they can get, if the Minister would say, "We are prepared to reopen the register," notwithstanding that formidable body the General Nursing Council. I know how difficult such bodies can be. Having won his way to the extent he has on this Bill up to now, I hope that now, instead of standing up to Parliament, he will stand up to the General Nursing Council and give me my Amendment.

Mr. McEntee: I would like to add a few words to the appeal made to the Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer). All my life I have been up against the idea of building a wall around either a profession or a trade. I came across it in my very early days in the building trade, when certain trades made the conditions of entry into that trade so difficult as to make it almost impossible for others to come in, and I remember in those days the horror with which they were viewed by what I was pleased to call at that time people of the upper classes. Every effort was made, and ultimately those efforts succeeded in breaking down that barrier round the trades.
I remember following the last war the same kind of period regarding the time when an application could be made for a pension by those unfortunate fellows who were wounded or had disabilities of one kind or another in the last war. I remember the seven years period after which no application could be made for a pension. Ultimately, because of pressure from outside, as in the other case I have mentioned, that barrier of time was broken down. Here is a profession, and it is not the only profession in regard to which the moment some people get into it their object appears to be to prevent anyone else from coming in. It is

bad for the profession and bad for the country. Surely it is not unreasonable to say to the Minister that the only thing that ought to be necessary in this regard is that the person should be qualified. Is it not wrong that a qualified person, because of reasons that have already been given, and which I need not elaborate—many good, cogent reasons—did not at an earlier time obtain registration, are therefore to be barred from registration for the rest of their lives, and are to be barred from the opportunities that may come to them, and which they may need, at some time in the future because of not having a registered title? I appeal to the Minister not to put up this barrier which is sought to be put up in this profession by certain people who have got in and wish to prevent others from coming in. It is not unreasonable to open the profession to qualified people. That is the only thing you need worry about. Are they qualified? If they are, give them permission to come in, with the same opportunities for employment in all the spheres of nursing which those on the register are permitted to apply for to-day.

Mr. Cocks: I wish to support the Amendment. A day or two ago I met in the Lobby two charming nursing sisters, one with a caressing Irish accent which would bring tears to the eyes of the most flinty-hearted Minister or civil servant. They were experienced nurses with the highest possible qualifications, who had served in the last war, and since then had spent many years in India. I understand that they are working for the country now. They said that because when they were very young and thoughtless and admittedly had many happy things to occupy their minds at that time, they omitted to register. It was a mere formality which they did not think of at the time. They feel now that they have been penalised under this Bill and graded below nurses who have no higher qualifications and less experience than they have. One has written me a letter, in which she says:
This is our grumble. We feel a great injustice will be done to the fully qualified general trained nurse who trained in a recognised training school and through various reasons did not register during the period of grace. After all it was only a technical fault and we feel we ought to be given the opportunity of having our names put on the Register with the same status as those with the same qualifications now on the Register. Many of us served the


country well in the last war and are doing the same in this and the Government are needing the skilled nurse, who is always willing to come forward, but we do feel we have been penalised too long for our youthful omission.
The Minister, I am sure, is always willing to listen to an appeal, and I hope he will allow these nurses to be put upon the register. There is no reason why they should not be put on, and nobody is going to suffer an injustice if they are put on. The country wants their help at the present time, and I plead with the Minister to agree to accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.

Mr. E. Brown: The hon. Gentleman seems to be under a misapprehension in one or two matters. First of all, if the charming ladies to whom he refers are as highly and fully qualified as he would suggest, I do not understand why they did not take advantage, not of the first period when they should have registered, but of the longer period extending to as far as 1925, when the last war had been over for seven years, which was allowed in which to take the necessary steps. I would remind the Committee that that period of grace was given in order to bring in people who had found it difficult to come in particularly because of the war, or particularly because their circumstances had changed. But the standards were not as high as the standards now demanded for those who are State registered nurses. Secondly, since that period there have been many nurses who omitted to take advantage of the period of grace who have taken the additional training necessary in order to get on to the register in the normal way of passing the State examination. I cannot understand, since many have done that who were in exactly the same position as the charming Irish lady, why she and her friends should not do the same.
To take the second point, that the prejudice against the case in favour of this Amendment is that the General Nursing Council do not like it, I would say that my hon. Friend makes a very partial statement there. The fact is that the whole profession is against re-opening the register in the way he proposes. [Interruption.] No, the hon. Member is quite wrong. If he will apply to the Royal College of Nursing, he will find that they are equally opposed to the reopening of the register in this form as are

the General Nursing Council. I do not want to delay the Committee longer to put up an argument that may be more powerful to my hon. Friend than he found the official argument, but I would recommend him to do this if he has not already done it: he will see the case for the special list which is meant to meet hardship set out in paragraph 20 in the Report of the Committee on Nursing Reconstruction, set up at the behest of the Royal College of Nursing and presided over by Lord Horder. The arguments were weighed, and if the Committee will look at that long paragraph they will be convinced that the profession is right from the point of view of not letting standards down. They might in any case not have been qualified for the general register at all—it might be a supplementary register for some, of them who might not have been qualified to come on to the general State register. I regret I am not able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. McEntee: Will the Minister give some reason why there is any necessity at all for a time limit? He has not said one word to show that a time limit is an advantage.

Mr. Brown: It is quite clear that we were doing two things. Setting up a register by the overwhelming demand of all concerned and with the assent and consent of Parliament as a whole, we were first of all putting on the register some with qualifications not so high as would be required by the terms laid down for all future entrants. It would be dangerous to re-open what Parliament has decided in general terms as long ago, as 1919 from the point of view of keeping the standard up.

Mr. Woods: I am rather surprised that the Minister has become so heated. There seems to be an undue exaggeration on his part as to what is asked in this Amendment. We know quite well that women who were definitely continuing in the nursing profession had abundant opportunity—as a matter of fact, I think the opportunities were generous—in that they could get in on a status lower than that demanded at present. That is all true. There is no question or dispute on that. The Minister and the Committee know that many women, trained nurses, happily married, had families of young children, and


finished with the profession and were thankful that they were finished with it, as conditions had been so bad that they did not want to be reminded of nursing again. We are now passing further legislation on the question of nursing, and there has been another war, commencing in 1939. The best service that many of these women—with their children now grown up—could give would be in the profession for which they were trained. What the Mover of the Amendment is asking is that for a period at any rate there should be willingness to consider applications. I do not think there will be a very considerable number, but it it not merely for the women's sake but because of the urgent need for qualified and experienced nurses that it should be considered. I do not think it would mean very great labour.
We are not asking that the standard should be lowered. They can set what standard they like, and say that any woman who has had the necessary training and can prove her qualifications can come in. It is a very small thing to ask, and it would placate members of the profession who are opposed to this. At the same time, it would meet the problem of providing a few more qualified nurses and give them the status they are entitled to by their qualifications, instead of condemning them because they did not avail themselves of the period of grace. They did not then picture themselves coming back to the profession. Now they are needed because of the war, and the need may become far greater yet.

Mr. E. Brown: Discussions have taken place to meet the very point which has been put. We have arranged to have a special list. These people will have the right to use the word "nurse," and they will go on with their work; but if they want admission to the general register, surely they must conform to the standards which have been applicable since the period of grace expired.

Sir F. Fremantle: Will these women be allowed to use the title "nurse"?

Mr. Brown: Yes.

Sir F. Fremantle: According to Clause 6, they will not, because they will not be registered; they will not be enrolled.

Mr. Brown: Under the regulations, under Clause 6, Sub-section (1), proviso (b), they will be entitled to.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Haden Guest: Can the Minister tell us what will be the position under this Clause of male nurses? That does not seem quite clear, especially in view of the discussion we have had on Clause 13, where it has been necessary to alter the description of "sister tutor" to something else. It is true that nurses are mostly females, but there is a valuable group of men who have served in the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, who are excellent nurses and whose position does not seem quite definite—at any rate, about whom I feel some doubt.

Miss Horsbrugh: That category of nurses is included. Again, there is no difference between male and female. "Nurses" includes both.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 17.—(Interpretation.)

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 11, line 15, to leave out from "children" to the end of the line.
This Amendment is for the purpose of preventing confusion. Under the Bill as it stands, providing that a trained nurse was nursing in sickness as well as in health, she would be entitled to the description of nurse, but a nanny who looks after children is entitled to use the term "children's nurse," and these is no need for the words:
in health as well as in sickness.

Mr. E. Brown: This would make it clear that "children's nurse" means a person whose avocation is that of caring for children, and that meets the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, order to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 18.—(Short title, citation and extent.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir F. Fremantle: I want to ask one question. The Clause says:
This Act shall not extend to Scotland…
We know that Lord Alness's Committee reported against the use of the term "assistant nurse." Will not this make for confusion, and the result that Scotswomen as well as Scotsmen will all be flooding down upon us?

Mr. E. Brown: I must leave that to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Delegation of powers by county council to council of county district.)

(1) A county council may, on the application of the council of any county district within the county, by agreement delegate to the Council of that district, either with or without restrictions or conditions, any of the functions of the county council under the provisions of this Part of this Act.

(2) If the council of a county district who have made an application under the preceding Sub-section are aggrieved by the refusal of the county council to delegate functions, or by any conditions or restrictions which the county council propose to impose, the council of the county district may make a representation to the Minister and the Minister after consultation with the county council may by order direct the county council to delegate to the council of the county district, either with or without restrictions or conditions, such functions under this Part of this Act as the Minister thinks proper, and the county council shall comply with any direction so given.

The Minister may at any time by order revoke an order previously made by him under this Sub-section.

(3) Where any functions of a county council are delegated under this Section to the council of a county district that council shall, as regards the functions so delegated, be deemed to be the licensing authority.

(4) Any expenses incurred by the council of a county district in the discharge of functions delegated to them under this Section shall up to an amount not exceeding such sums as may be fixed by the county council or on an appeal by the Minister be repaid to the council of the county district by the county council.

(5) Any fees received under this Part of this Act by the council of a county district shall as the county council may direct either be paid to that council or be applied in reduction of tie sum to be repaid under this Section by that council to the council of the county district.—[Sir A Maitland.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir A. Maitland: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I am not sure whether the Minister is going to accept this Clause or not.

Mr. E. Brown: Yes.

Sir A. Maitland: If he is going to accept it, there is no need for me to say any more. I formally move it.

Mr. Ammon: As I see it, this new Clause is so framed that London is not included. I want to be quite sure about that.

Mr. E. Brown: That is so. It generally follows Section 194 of the Public Health Act, 1936.

Mr. George Griffiths: Has not London a county council? It says here "a county council."

Mr. E. Brown: London has a special Act.

Mr. Griffiths: I am very pleased that the Minister is accepting this new Clause. It will save a good deal of discussion, and I am sure that, on the evidence we could have put forward, we could have converted the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. McEntee: I want to make sure that the Essex County Council Act, 1932, which gave power to delegate to four boroughs the power of registration of employment agencies, including nurses cooperation, as they are called, will now be continued, and that, under this new Clause, the four boroughs will be enabled, subject to their agreement, to carry on the delegated powers.

Mr. Brown: I could not answer that without notice, but I think the new Clause is meant to cover that point. I will look into it, and make sure.

Mr. Rhys Davies: May I thank the Minister for accepting this new Clause? Some of the smaller authorities are very much disturbed at the fact that Parliament is always granting powers to the larger authorities.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Would the Minister look at the end of Sub-section (2), which gives him power to revoke by order an order previously made by him under the Sub-section? In what circumstances will revocation take place. It seems to me that the Minister is being given very extraordinary power.

Mr. E. Brown: It is not an extraordinary power; it is common form, and gives the necessary elasticity which is always wanted in such a case.

Sir A. Maitland: I assure my hon. Friend that there has been no trouble in regard to this matter. The power has existed for a number of years. I would like to thank my right hon. Friend for accepting the Clause.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill,

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. The Clause having been accepted and added to the Bill, will it now be subject to amendment? What happens to it?

The Chairman: I do not see any Amendment on the Paper.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 2 (3) of principal Act.)

Subsection (3) of section two of the principal Act (which provides that a certificate under the seal of the Council, duly authenticated, stating that a person is, or was at any date, or is not, or was not at any date, duly registered under that Act shall be conclusive evidence in all courts of law of the fact stated in the certificate) shall have effect with the omission of the word "conclusive."—[Mr. Linstead.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Linstead: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of the Clause is to make an Amendment in the principal Act corresponding to the Amendment which has been agreed to on Clause 1, so that the word "conclusive" is removed both from the principal Act in relation to certificates relating to registered nurses, and from this Bill in relation to certificates relating to enrolled assistant nurses.

Mr. E. Brown: I shall be glad to accept this Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Constitution and Proceedings of Assistant Nurses Committee.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the First Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Gallacher: Excuse me, I want to be clear. I am in favour of these Clauses——

The Chairman: I am afraid we are now on the First Schedule.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. It has been proposed that the Clauses be added to the Bill. Is it not necessary that there should be a Motion that the Clauses stand part of the Bill?

The Chairman: The Clauses are added to the Bill, and that means that they stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Brooke: I would like to ask one question on the Schedule.

Mr. Messer: On a point of Order. I wanted to move my Amendment, Major Milner—in page 11, line 30, after "with," to insert "trade unions representing nurses and "—I was waiting until you had called Mr. Burden.

The Chairman: I did not call the hon. Member. I was informed that the Amendment was consequential.

Mr. Brooke: Section 4 of the Schedule arranges how the five representatives of assistant nurses are to be appointed after the expiration of the first term of office, which will probably be three years. The five are thereafter to be appointed, as to four by the assistant nurses themselves, and as to the remaining one by the Minister. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that his intention, other things being equal, will be to exercise that power so as to add to the Committee someone who is not herself an assistant nurse. This very important committee consists of 11 members. As to the six appointed by the General Nursing Council, it is definitely provided that at least one shall not be a registered nurse. If in this whole body there is only one who is not a member of the profession she will lead a rather lonely life. Beyond that, for general purposes it will be of great value, so as to introduce the outside standpoint, if there is a nucleus of members of the Committee who have not spent their whole lives in the profession. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will use his prescribed power in such a way as to include in the Committee a second member who is keenly interested in the welfare of assistant nurses but is herself not a member of the profession.

Mr. E. Brown: I could not commit myself at this stage, but I will bear what my hon. Friend has said in mind when making up my mind who ought to represent the assistant nurses on this Committee.

Question, "That this be the First Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(List of Nurses not Registered or Enrolled.)

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 12, line 32, at the end, to insert:
and shall be entitled to the designation of State Registered Nurse.
This is to cover the position of nurses whom it has been decided shall not go on to the register but on to the list. By putting them on the list it is bound to show that they are not State registered nurses. Are they assistant nurses? The right hon. Gentleman has not decided what they are. If they are qualified as State registered nurses, they should have the designation of State Registered Nurse. I do not know whether this problem has faced the Minister, but it seems to be a difficulty. These poor women are in a vacuum. They are suspended. They are neither fish, flesh, fowl nor good redherring. They are not assistant nurses and they are not State nurses and surely it is not intended to call them listed nurses, which means "black-listed" nurses. The Minister has declined to accept an Amendment to put them in the Bill, but I hope he will give them a designation.

Mr. E. Brown: I thought I made it clear in the general discussion that it was my intention under proviso (b) of Clause 6 (1) to designate them in order that they may be able to use the title of "nurse," so that they will not be left but, in the words of the old song,
We've got them on the list
And they never will be missed.

Mr. Messer: Does that mean that they will only be known as nurses? All other nurses will have a prefix, and these will be the only ones who will not have a prefix. There will be State registered nurse, tuberculosis nurse, fever nurse and children's nurse, but they will be only "nurse."

Mr. E. Brown: And very good too.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Linstead: I beg to move, in page 12, line 35, to leave out "conclusive."

This is a consequential Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendment; as amended, considered.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Constitution and Proceedings of Assistant Nurses Committee.)

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 11, line 30, after "with," to insert "trade unions representing nurses and."
If there is to be consultation, I cannot see why there should not be consultation with trade unions who have a special knowledge of nurses. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that there shall be consultation, not with general bodies, but with those bodies having a special knowledge of assistant nurses. There are trade unions which cater almost specially for that type and their members include nurses working under the local authorities. I do not want to advertise the trade unions—and those that I have in mind do not need to be advertised—but there are two or three very important trade unions whose members come under that category and they should be consulted in company with the other bodies the Minister has in mind in the Schedule.

Mr. McEntee: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. E. Brown: The Amendment, I can assure the hon. Member, is quite unnecessary. In so far as trade unions have special knowledge and experience of the work of assistant nurses, under the general provisions of the Bill, they will be consulted by me. To put them in now would ipso facto rule out altogether a number of other organisations which will be consulted also. I hope that with that assurance my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Messer: In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Messer: Will the House permit me to express my


pleasure at having obtained some little concession from the Minister? The Bill can be made the stepping-stone to higher things. If it is left where it is, it is capable of really doing damage, but if it is used as a foundation for creating a real profession, we may live to see the nursing profession, what it ought to be, as a very important partner, comparable with the medical profession. I have never understood why we have regarded nurses in the inferior position in which they have been put. Those who are accustomed to walking the wards of hospitals realise the immense importance of the nurses. The doctor may be clever, but his cleverness will not succeed unless there is an assurance that the work that he directs is going to be carried out faithfully. Mere cleverness is not good enough in a profession such as this. Paper examinations are not all that is wanted. I have seen student nurses who have got well away with their examinations on biology, physiology and anatomy and yet in the wards, because they have lacked those human graces that are required, they have never become really successful nurses.
It is not merely that what one might term the training of the mind that is wanted. A successful nurse has not merely to be an officer; she has to be a character. The qualities which she requires demand the greatest from the individual, patience when it is most needed, kindliness when the conditions, which are her environment, are the most irritating, and strength when she is the most tired. She is not like so many who are engaged in avocations by which they get their living having to satisfy one section of people. It is not only for the nurse to satisfy the sister, the doctor, the matron, the home sister or the sister housekeeper, or all that worried and wonderful army of officials who are her seniors. She has also to satisfy the patient and the patient's relatives. There is no one, in my opinion, who occupies quite the special place in society that the nurse occupies, and I want to do her that measure of credit that comes from gratitude through experience, and to express the hope that this Bill will not be the end of what we are going to do for nurses, but is the beginning of a great and glorious future.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I would like to join with my

hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) in congratulating the Minister on bringing this Bill through the House of Commons so successfully. The nursing profession of this country occupies a place peculiarly its own. My hon. Friend has said that the work of nurses has not been adequately recognised in the past in the social structure of the country. We have only to look back on the raids on this country and the innumerable instances in which the nurses played a great part by displaying courage, tenacity and self-sacrifice. I happen to be the chairman of a hospital, and I cannot find adequate words to express how profoundly I, as one associated with hospital administration in this country, regard the work performed by the nursing profession. I am proud to think that in the House of Commons, through the help of the Minister, who has rendered such admirable service to the health organisations of this country the Bill has been passed and is now going to another place, and that it will be in the interests of the nation. I join in saying how grateful we are to the Minister, though some may think perhaps it is a little belated, that now at all events this Measure has been brought to the House of Commons, and that a great profession, which has been administering for years to the health of our people and carrying burdens which cannot be described in words, is receiving some little recognition. I hope that it is the beginning of what can be done to stabilise and expand the wonderful service which the nursing community has rendered to the health of this nation in the past.

Dr. Haden Guest: I want to add one word to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) and the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) with regard to the position of nurses. This Bill marks a very important stage in the recognition of the value and importance of the nursing profession, but I do not know whether the House and the country realise that the work of hospitals and of doctors—that work which at the present time is so extraordinarily valuable in our Services—is the joint work of doctors and nurses and that the high standard of that work would be entirely and completely impossible without the work of the nurses. Both in the last war and in this war I have had experience in hospitals, and I


have had experience in other countries, and I think we are entitled to put on record the fact that the high standard of hospital services in this country—which, unfortunately by no means exists in all other countries—is due to this very close co-operation between the medical and nursing professions.
I rejoice that by means of this Bill we are advancing the status of nurses. I hope it will lead to even greater improvements in the condition of our hospital services and other services in which nurses render valuable aid. It is not only the work of doctors and nurses but their combined work in this characteristically British form of organisation which has given us the excellent services we value so much and which I hope will be improved in the future. I have been told, when talking to matrons of hospitals, that I laid emphasis on what they chose to call the trade union point of view with regard to nurses. Well, I do not wish to lay emphasis on the trade union point of view, but as one who has often in the past been in the unfortunate position of having to pay nurses salaries which I regarded as entirely inadequate I hope that one of the results of the improvement of their status will be an improvement in their financial status as well. I am very much in favour of paying people who are devoted to their calling as well as people who are not devoted.

Mr. Storey: I would like to add my congratulations to the Minister on having successfully piloted this Bill through the House of Commons. I am glad that the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) and myself has been accepted by the Government. This Bill will do much to add to the status of assistant nurses. It is not, as has been suggested, the first stage in the improvement of the status of nurses: that stage was taken in 1919 when State registered nurses were dealt with. This Bill will increase the status of a body of women who are performing a special task requiring special training and whose work is much needed at the present time. I think the nursing profession is to be congratulated on the fact that from all quarters of the House this Bill has found support and may rest content in knowing that all quarters of the House are determined to see that it has a fair deal.

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: My hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) mentioned a number of qualifications necessary if a nurse is to do good work. As one who has recently benefited from nursing, I would like to add one other characteristic—iron constitution and strength. If I asked Members of Parliament how many miles a day a nurse walked in the course of her duties, I wonder what reply would be given? I said to the nursing sister who was attending me, "How many miles a day do you walk?" and she replied that she had recently carried out the experiment of putting a pedometer on her leg and taking note of the average mileage over a month. The result was that she found that she never walked less than nine miles a day up and down the same corridor, and on one day she did 13 miles. When it is considered that that is not an abnormal case and that at the end of every journey there was some mission of healing to be done, one can well understand how important it is to raise the status of nurses and, with that status, their conditions.
I suggest that there are still two things that need looking into. One is to make quite sure that the governing bodies of hospitals and all those responsible for nurses see that they get adequate time off each day. That is almost as important as remuneration. There are still hospitals that do not allow adequate time for recreation and leisure for their nurses. There could be, too, in many hospitals an improvement in feeding conditions and living quarters. I have come across hospitals where very inadequate sleeping conditions have been provided for nurses who, after a heavy day's work, have found it very difficult, owing to noise, to get an adequate and refreshing night's sleep. I want to conclude by adding my tribute to the Minister for having got through this sensible and practicable piece of legislation.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I would not have spoken at all if it was not for the fact that I have been a member of several Committees since I have been in the House of Commons, and it gives me a great deal of delight and joy when recommendations of any Committee of which I have been a member have been accepted. That is the case to-day. The thing that impressed me very largely when I sat on the Committee that made the


recommendations upon which this Bill is based is that it does not matter so much about examinations and State registration if there are good conditions of employment and there is keen competition within the nursing profession. I hope the Minister will bear in mind the very important factor of conditions of employment for nurses. The Minister and Members of all parties are looking forward in the near future to a great advance in the health services of the nation, and there is no better contribution to that advance than a contented, well-organised and well-treated nursing profession.

Mr. Gallacher: I, also, would like to add my appreciation of the great services of nurses in this country. I was in a hospital as recently as last Monday and saw some of them there caring with gentleness and thoughtfulness for some of those who have suffered as the result of war—and some were suffering very much. I appreciate more the work of nurses because I am conscious of the fact that the nurses at the Manor House Hospital, by their devotion, are responsible for my hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) being here at the present time. That is something which I know the House will take note of and appreciate. Reference has been made to the new status of nurses. After the last war we were told that we in the engineering trade had a new status, but almost immediately afterwards all the engineers left the trade because, although they had a new status, they got no cash. So when we are paying tributes—and we cannot pay a high enough tribute to our nurses—never let us forget that along with that tribute there should be the necessary amount of hard cash.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I do not want to detain the House for more than a few moments, except to say first of all that I am grateful to those Members who have taken an interest in the Committee stage of the Bill and for the practical way in which they have helped us to get it through. I agree with all that has been said about our nurses, but there is one other quality which was missing from the catalogue, and I think I ought to add it. It is patience—a great quality and one that is sometimes overlooked. I have been fortunate up to now in having good

health, with the exception of wounds, when I did see something of the work of our nurses, and it is because of that experience that I and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary have been especially glad to promote this Bill. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has, indeed, taken a day-to-day interest in the nursing profession and has established herself as one of its strongest supporters. It is a happy thing that we should pass this Bill in the same week as a national scale of salaries becomes effective for the first time.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Political controversy.)

Section forty of the Army Act (which relates to conduct to prejudice of military discipline) shall be amended by adding at the end thereof the words:
Provided that taking part in political controversy whilst off duty shall not be deemed conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline within the meaning of this section."—(Captain Cunning-ham-Reid.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Captain Cunningham-Reid (St. Marylebone): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It was Oliver Cromwell who said:
A soldier must know what he fights for and love what he knows,
and I think he understood soldiers just about as well as anybody. Our men today are fighting in the fields, fighting in the skies and on the seas not only for survival but also for a better world and that includes their home country. If we in this comfortable House commend that spirit and are grateful to them, why do we not prove it by allowing all ranks in the Services a fair say as to what they are fighting for?
The Army, in which there are more men than in the sister Services, has its political freedom governed by regulations that belong to the days when wars were a thing


apart from the great mass of the people. To make this clear it is necessary for me to quote a few extracts from the rules and regulations that govern the political freedom of temporary fighting men. Paragraph 541, Section A, of King's Regulations for the Army says:
No officer or soldier…is permitted to take any active part in the affairs of any political organisation or party, either by acting as a member of a candidate's election committee, or by speaking in public or publishing or distributing literature in furtherance of the political purposes of any such organisation or party, or in any other manner, until he or she retires, resigns or has been discharged or, in the case of a field marshal, until he has relinquished any appointment that he may be holding.
As the Committee is well aware, in exceptional circumstances a soldier can stand for Parliament, but how many of the millions now in the Army are likely to get that opportunity? Paragraphs 546 and 547 make restrictions upon the soldiers even in relation to writing to the Press, and a recent pronouncement of the Prime Minister indicated there was likely to be in the future even further restriction. Members of Parliament who are in the Army and who, as Members of Parliament, can enjoy such privileges unhindered, should be the first to champion in this House equality of opportunity for their less fortunate colleagues.
The King's Regulations to which I have just referred clearly indicate that there is a very real difference between the political liberty of the citizen and the political liberty of the citizen soldier. We have always claimed that we have free speech in this country and that there is no repression of political thought. This has always been considered to be a safety valve. It has been said that such freedom prevents political passion getting bottled up and developing into that extremism which can so easily lead to anarchy and even to mutiny. If this be so, why are we such hypocrites, and at the same time why are we so short-sighted, as not to extend to the soldier when off duty some of the political rights that he enjoyed before enlistment? If anyone has a stake in the future of this country, he has, and if we have a main obligation, it is to him.
I have little doubt that some pundits in the War Office and class-conscious Colonel Blimps will exclaim that it is a

shocking thing to contemplate that the common soldier should have access to political education, but no Minister of War, nobody representing the War Office, could possibly stand at that Box and sincerely say that if soldiers were allowed when off duty to express their political views, their morale, discipline and fighting efficiency would be prejudiced. On the other hand, I think that any Minister would be proud to boast that whatever we Britishers do is freely entered into by the majority, that we are not a regimented country, that freedom of thought and freedom of speech are the very soul of our democratic institutions. But how could such a Minister, having made such a boast, reconcile it with a denial to our citizen soldiers, sailors and airmen of the rights enjoyed by them yesterday and still enjoyed by their fellow citizens today who do not happen to be in the uniform of one of the Fighting Services? We pride ourselves in this country, and rightly so, of having thinking soldiers and not the Nazi robot type of soldiers, and yet we make it well-nigh impossible for soldiers to express publicly what they are thinking. Soldiers appreciate—and I want to make this point very clear—that it would lead to an impossible state of affairs if they were permitted openly to criticise Service matters. None of them makes such a demand. But they do resent—and I think there are quite a few hon. Members who will bear testimony to this—that they are denied, when off duty, the right of publicly expressing an opinion about the shape of the new Britain for which they are asked to fight and die.
The majority of those in the Services are not Regular Service men. This is a citizens' war. A large proportion of those who are in the Services happen to be people who were not in reserved occupations. In other words, they are just ordinary citizens. Having, though, got into the Services, they have discovered that they are at once at a disadvantage compared with those whom they left in civilian occupations. I should say that in fact they are under a double, if not a treble, disadvantage. In the first place, there is the disadvantage of their having less pay. The pay and allowances of the average soldier are considerably less than the average income of an industrial worker. Secondly, there is the disadvantage, which is a considerable one, of their


having a greater chance than the industrial worker of being killed. I do not say that the industrial worker does not have every opportunity of being killed in air raids, but the ordinary soldier, especially in the Fighting Services, has not only air raids to contend with but the ordinary chances of active service. There is a third disadvantage which upsets them more than the others do; it is that they are not allowed in any circumstances publicly to express any political views when they are on leave.
As I indicated a little earlier in my remarks, a soldier may in certain circumstances write to the Press. We had a slight discussion about that only the other day. They may write to the Press, but even though they are able to get by all the restrictions, I think they would be very lucky if their contributions were accepted by the Press. But the fact remains that they may in certain circumstances write to the Press. I ask hon. Members to look at the illogical situation which that brings up. A man in the Services may write certain political views to the Press and yet the same man is not allowed to express the same views by word of mouth. If he takes up a pen, that is all right, but if he wishes, when he is on leave, to get up on a platform at a political meeting in a small village and speak, that is not allowed. I think it will be agreed that that is an absurd, practically a Gilbertian, situation.
While on this topic, assuming for the sake of argument that the Clause will be accepted and that those in the Services will be given an opportunity sometimes of saying publicly what they like politically, let us assume further that there would crop up the question whether they should be allowed to do this while in uniform. I do not intend to press the desirability for this. There is quite a lot to be said on both sides, but I think there is more to be said for than against the contention that soldiers should be able to express political views while in uniform, because if one says that a soldier may take part in a public political discussion when he is on leave and if at the same time one says, "But you must not wear uniform," this would at once penalise the soldier. The average soldier has not any longer got any civilian clothing. He probably only had one suit, but by now it has either been pawned or is moth-eaten, or his wife

or some other female dependant has cut it up for family purposes.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member is getting very wide of the matter under discussion when he goes into the question of soldiers' old civilian clothes.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I beg your pardon, Mr. Williams, but I hope you will allow me to discuss the question whether a soldier should be allowed publicly to express political views while wearing a uniform. If a man is not allowed to wear a uniform on such occasions, he would be very seriously penalised because the average soldier does not go about with a natty suit of gents' clothes in his rucksack. That being so, I suggest that if it were conceded that they should be allowed when on leave to take part in politics, but not while wearing uniform, it might very likely mean that ardent politicians in the Army, if they wanted to stand up on a platform and express political views, would have to do so in their underclothes, because they would have no other civilian clothes available.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks are relevant up to that point, but my Ruling is that the discussion must not be carried any further.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I want to make it clear that I am not in any way pressing this aspect of the matter, because I do not want to jeopardise the concession of my main request, which is so much more important.
I am confident that other hon. Members feel as I do, that the time is long overdue when all members of the Services should not only have the right when off duty freely to write their political views but also freely to express their political views by word of mouth. Far from doing any harm, far from prejudicing military discipline, I feel that this would be much more likely to do the opposite by preventing dangerous frustrations. Millions in the Services who are not allowed publicly to utter a word about the Atlantic Charter, the Beveridge Report, or the Prime Minister's recent pronouncement concerning a Four-Years Plan. Their views and hopes must not be openly expressed. When they put on uniform they put on a muzzle. I consider it is both


immoral and un-British to gag them in this unnecessary and undemocratic manner. If we expect those who are doing the righting for us to be maimed and killed, in justice we must allow them to have some say in what they are fighting for and what they are dying for.

Sir Richard Acland: I do not always agree with the hon. and gallant Member, but on this occasion he has raised a point of the utmost importance. There are many men in the Armed Forces who ask what part they as citizens can play, and those who do not know the answer in advance, are dismayed to learn that in taking upon themselves the duty of fighting for their country, they have been deprived of the right of talking about the sort of country they wish to live in when they have fought for it. A careful investigation would show that quite a lot of these people feel so strongly about it, that on their seven days' leave they cannot be restrained, and they risk the penalties involved in expressing their political views. You cannot stop them; they are determined to do it. The more efforts are made to stop them, the more it is made clear that the Government's attitude to them is, "You may fight but you shall not speak," the more determined many of them will be to take part in these matters. I am carrying a little further the controversy I had with the Minister of Information, who gave me at Question Time to-day one of his rather clever replies. I think the point I made then was absolutely right and that I am justified in making it again. Many people who are fighting and working enthusiastically in this struggle would be able—psychologically, spiritually, mentally and morally—to work and fight with even more enthusiasm if they could have held out to them prospects of a post-war Britain very different from those offered by the present Government. I do not see why in the world they should not say so.
There are two evil tendencies which seem to be creeping over the governmental mind in these days. The first is a tendency not to realise that the practice of democracy pays a dividend every time in concrete results. The second is a tendency not to recognise that absolutely sincere, patriotic citizens, committed up to the hilt to the destruction of Nazism, fundamentally disagree with the view of

the Government. Or I can roll those two tendencies into one and say that I notice among the ruling class a really dangerous tendency to think, "Democracy is O.K. as long as the boys agree with us." That is a terribly dangerous tendency which has developed in other countries. I think it is a tendency of which members of the Government should beware. I would address to them once again the words of Cromwell, to envisage the possibility that they may be wrong.

Mr. Bartle Bull: This is the second time Cromwell has been quoted. Did he have these political discussions?

Sir R. Acland: The Cromwellian armies were brought into being on political controversy and, while they were fighting unitedly against their opponents, they were discussing very vigorously amongst themselves what use they would make of their victory when they had won it.

The Deputy-Chairman: We have had quite enough of that point, which is on the verge of being out of Order. I would ask the hon. Baronet to leave that point.

Sir R. Acland: There are thousands of our fellow citizens fighting and working for this country, impeded by a gnawing anxiety that they are going to be "led up the garden path" all over again as they were last time. I am saying things that may be unpleasant to hon. Members opposite but they are the truth, and these men ought to be allowed to say so now. I know, of course, that what I say is not true of all of them, and hon. Members opposite may say it is only true of a very small minority.

Commander Agnew: Has the hon. Baronet forgotten that in a book which he recently wrote called "What It Will Be Like"

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Baronet's speech has got near enough to being out of Order without quotations from his books.

Sir R. Acland: I am sorry that I am being interrupted and am hot allowed to reply. If those who share my view are a majority, or a minority capable of becoming a majority, then to use these Regulations, which are wholly appropriate for peace time, as if they were equally applicable to a citizen army is a suppression of democracy, and democracy is supposed to be what we are fighting for.

Mr. Lawson: I think it is a good thing that we should have-an opportunity of considering this subject because the speeches of the two supporters of the Amendment show that there is a very real need for the position to be properly stated by the War Office. My experience is not in line with a good deal that the two hon. Members have said. Within the last few months I have had the privilege of visiting the forces in North Africa. Large groups of men put questions to me, and some actually put their questions in writing through official channels. Two out of three of the questions were, definitely, on political subjects.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: That was not a public meeting.

Mr. Lawson: It is necessary to state that fact because that was not the impression given by either of the hon. Members to the Committee and to the country outside. Then, of course, there is the question of men on leave. I have not heard any complaint. I am not saying there is not reason for complaint, because you sometimes get commanding officers of various political views who do not always allow liberty. When I was a member of the Armed Forces in the last war I had no difficulty in expressing myself on leave, and I did it. I do not know whether I am giving too much away but when the lights were out I sometimes had to take the chair and preside over discussions and one irate sergeant of the old school told me that I was not a bad soldier but after "lights out" I was a good nightingale. Full and free discussion takes place amongst the men in the Forces. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) talked about the difficulty of men getting clothes. I thought that was a rather thin argument. I did not see any difficulty about it at all.

The Deputy-Chairman: I also thought it rather thin.

Mr. Buchanan: On a point of Order. We are debating soldiers' rights of public meeting. There is a divergence of opinion whether it should be narrowed down to uniform or no uniform. Is it not in order to argue that a man might have nothing else to wear but his uniform?

The Deputy-Chairman: I ruled that it was a fair illustration to point out that it was difficult in many cases for a soldier to speak because he had nothing to wear but uniform, but that that must not be used, as a sideline, to argue that he should have civilian clothes provided for him by other Departments.

Mr. Lawson: It is very necessary, particularly in these times, to see that the soldier has full and ample opportunity to express himself, and within my experience—and I think it is the general experience, of soldiers—there is ample opportunity for that under proper conditions. If the representative of the War Office would state what those conditions are, it would be a useful lesson for the Committee and the country in general. I do not want to see our Army, in which I want everybody to be able to express themselves under proper conditions, becoming a political interference. Anybody who has noticed the development of that kind of thing on the Continent must agree that the conditions under which a soldier expresses himself must be laid down. As a humble member of the Forces I did not find any difficulty about that and I have not seen any difficulty in my experience.

Mr. William Brown: I want to confine my observations to four points. I wish, first, to submit that the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) has a double importance. It is of importance in its own right but it is also important as part of the background of the soldier's life. The second aspect is not less important than the first. Then, I should like to draw a contrast With the German Army and to quote some of the things that have been said on this subject of democracy in the Army by independent and neutral observers. Thirdly, I should like to ask whether there is not some guidance to be got in the matter from the practice of the Civil Service which has had to consider the question of the dividing line between a politicalised service and freedom for the individual.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is threatening to get on to the Civil Service, and perhaps he will take it as a warning from me that anything that deals with the Civil Service, will undoubtedly be out of Order.

Mr. Brown: Suppose I can show that the very problem with which we are dealing has arisen in another branch of His Majesty's Service and that a solution has been reached which works reasonably well and, while avoiding the dangers which many people fear, gives freedom to the individual, may I not draw attention to it as giving some useful guidance?

The Deputy-Chairman: Only as a short illustration.

Mr. Brown: That is all I want to do. I want also to draw attention to what I think is the real issue, namely, the danger of developing in Britain a divorce between the Army and the civil population which is full of dangers to the future of this country. Those are the four points I would like to mention.

Mr. Molson: Now No. I.

Mr. Brown: I only numbered them in this simple way in order that the hon. Gentleman might be more easily able to follow them. I have two sons in the Armed Forces, one in the Air Force and one in Algeria, and what they tell me is——

Dr. Russell Thomas: How you talk, father.

Mr. Brown: I have not interrupted anybody during the Debate and I hope I shall be able to present a reasonable argument. I do not mind being subjected to interruptions, but I object to silly interruptions, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to restain himself if it be possible. My sons tell me that there are three things which trouble men in their military and Air Force life. One is the problem of disciplinary cases, the second is the material conditions of their service, and the third is their prospects for the future. It is the misfortune of the soldier, sailor or airman than he has none of the protection in disciplinary cases that the ordinary industrial worker possesses; he is denied the advantage of the protection of a trade union in his conditions of service, and on his prospects for the future, which are intimately bound up with post-war politics, he is denied the free expression of his views and feelings because he happens to wear a uniform. That third circumstance added to the other two is rightly the source of strong and deep resentment in all branches of His Majesty's Forces.
By way of contrast to that, may I remind the Committee that in a total war where the psychology of the soldier is as important as his arms, it is fatal to create an antithesis between what the soldier is-supposed to be fighting for and what he experiences in the conditions of his everyday life. That antithesis exists. We have in some respects a less democratic Army in Britain to-day than they have in Germany. If that is doubted, I would refer to the words of the American writer, William Shirer, who in his "Berlin Diary" points out that within the fabric of totalitarianism, the German High Command has been at the utmost pains to get away from that narrow segregation of the rank and file from the officers which prevailed in the last war. Shirer testifies that the German Army has succeeded in creating a much greater approximation to democracy than we have created inside the British Army. That is criticism which we should do well to take seriously.
My third point is that this is not a new problem. I would define it in this way—how can we reconcile the necessities of a disciplined service with the maximum freedom possible for the individuals who compose it? That problem poses itself in the Police Force, in the Prison Service and in the Civil Service. In the Civil Service they have been dealing with the problem for many years and they have reached a solution from which a lesson may be learned. A civil servant is no more allowed to get up and criticise his own Department in public, than a soldier would be free to criticise his general in public. Nobody is proposing that. Provided a civil servant does not abuse his position by using official information acquired as, a civil servant to attack the policy of his own Minister, he is allowed a reasonable liberty to express himself on the general policy issues of the day. If I am right about the speeches in the Debate to-day, that is all that is being pleaded for.
I come to the last point, the danger of developing a hiatus, an abyss between the Armed Forces and the civil population. There are many elements of danger already present. I was reading the other day Ludendorff's memoirs on the last war. He did not happen to be an independent Member of the British Parliament, but he was a member of the German High Command and, therefore, is a better witness than I might be in my own right. He asserts that one of the


principal reasons, for the breakdown of German national morale in the last war was the gap which developed between the civil population and the Army. There are already many elements of danger in that connection. The gap between the treatment of the soldier and the factory worker, the appalling treatment, so far, of the problem of the pensioners—do hon. Members imagine that there is no resentment about that in the Array?—the swiftness with which the Government can make up their minds that we are not to have Beveridge and that we can only have it within the limits of sound and modernised finance, and by contrast the amount of time taken to get pensioners' tribunals—here is all the raw material for the development of a vast gap between the Armed Forces and the civil population. Since Cromwell has been mentioned to-day, I would point out that if there was one thing about which that great man always took great pains, it was that he brought up his Army on controversial discussions.

Mr. Bull: But what did he do to the House of Commons?

Mr. Brown: I hope I will not be out of Order if I reply to that.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the hon. Member had better leave it alone and carry on with his argument.

Mr. Brown: Your Ruling, Mr. Williams, has deprived me, the House, the country and posterity of a most shattering reply. I assert that great dangers of the kind I have indicated are developing. I want to see great changes in Britain after the war, but I do not want to see them achieved through the vehicle of social upheaval. On that point I should have thought that all sections of the Committee would desire to be agreed. I want to see drastic changes but not through that vehicle, and I cannot help feeling that if you take the sum total of Government policy in this field and that, the Government are pushing the country along a path which may produce a situation in which upheaval will be the only way out. Among the dangers is the possibility of a divorce between the Armed Forces and the civil population.
I beg my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who is a personal friend as

well as a political friend, not to treat this question as an isolated thing, but to treat it as part of a wider problem. Do not treat it as a narrow exercise in dialectics but as a big problem in statesmanship. Do not treat it as an issue on which to score debating points—not that I mind that being done with me, because I am reasonably able to retort. I have greater freedom in interrupting than in replying to interruptions. I beg my hon. Friend to treat this as part of the general problem of the Army, which is already sore about the A.B.C.A. decision on the Beveridge Report, and about the restrictions placed by particular commanding officers on' discussions in regimental circles. It cannot say anything about it, it has no newspaper, it has none of the normal means of expression which the civilian population has, and I beg the hon. Gentleman to look beyond the Service and to treat this as part of the problem, first, of mobilising total enthusiasm for total war in Britain, and, secondly, preserving the internal solidarity of our people when the war is over and we face the problems of peace.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I hope quite dispassionately that this Clause will not go through in the form proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid). I think, without any prejudice, that it is difficult to know whether the speeches in favour of the Clause have shown more complete ignorance of military affairs or more complete disregard of the political history of our country. It is, I think, no coincidence whatever that the hon. and gallant Member who proposed this Clause, the hon. Member who supported it, and the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown) quoted Oliver Cromwell——

Mr. W. Brown: I did not.

Mr. Hogg: —or referred to Oliver Cromwell in terms of approbation. It is, in fact, the case that the history of the House of Commons in relation to this particular question was founded on its experience of Oliver Cromwell.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: On a point of Order. A little earlier when an hon. Gentleman started to talk about Oliver Cromwell you said it was not in Order, Mr. Williams. Is it in Order in one case and not in the other?

The Deputy-Chairman: I was allowing the hon. Member some licence to develop his argument. I was watching his argument closely to see whether it was going to be related in any way to the speeches that have already been made and also to the actual new Clause.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: May I ask whether there is not a danger of another Member getting up to confute the argument of the hon. Member that our political history dates from Oliver Cromwell?

The Deputy-Chairman: There is undoubtedly the danger.

Mr. Hogg: If the hon. Member had been listening to what I said he would have discovered that that was not the remark which I made. What is relevant to this Clause and what is important is that ever since the military dictatorship set up by Oliver Cromwell went down in a howl of popular execration and the rule of the House of Commons re-established in this land, it has been the purpose of the House of Commons to prevent the Army, as such, from taking a part in politics. It is that principle which to my mind is being disregarded by this Clause, and it is neither irrelevant nor improper to say that it is not a coincidence by any means that in proposing it the hon. and gallant Member laid stress on a quotation from the very man who set up a military dictatorship in this country and used the very argument which the hon. and gallant Member used in order to do so.

Mr. W. Brown: On a point of Order. That argument was not addressed to this House of Commons. It was addressed by Cromwell to the Scots divines after the Battle of Dunbar.

The Deputy-Chairman: Really, we have gone rather far beyond the bounds of Order with hon. Members getting into a controversy about their quotations respecting historic incidents. I hope the hon. Member will carry on, without pursuing that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Hogg: I was about to say that so far as the military matter is concerned, I can, at least, claim to have been in command of men both in this country and in the Middle East, and I am bound to say that I found no trace of the resentment referred to by the hon. and gallant Member. What I did find was that the

men enjoyed and often indulged in the freest possible discussions among themselves, and with their officers, about matters which would affect their lives after the war, but they did not desire or seek to take a part in political controversy outside their units whilst they were in the Army. That was my experience. I go further than that, and say that when they discovered what they described as a political soldier, they very much resented it. The fact is that when our young men go into the Army they are tired of party politics, because they are serving their country. The hon. Baronet regards his new party as something rather more privileged than other parties.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to keep away from questions of party politics.

Mr. Hogg: That is exactly what I want to do. It is precisely because I believe that those who serve in the Armed Forces of the Crown, while they enjoy political discussions as much as any other men, do not want to indulge in organised party politics, that I resist this Clause in its present form.

Mr. Buchanan: I feel that one of the strongest speeches for the new Clause, though not intentionally so, was made by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). In; arguing his case he told us of his experiences as a soldier, and said that when he was in the Forces he never had any difficulty in taking part in politics. That is the case we are making to-day. What we are asking is that people who are more timid than he is, those who have not the same courage and the same forthrightness, should be given as a legal right the right that he took. No one who knows the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, his character and his courage, would deny that he would take part in politics, and naturally so. All we ask is that the more timid and more backward of our soldiers should be given, the legal right which the hon. Member took for himself in his day. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) told us of his experience as a commanding officer. If I ever want to know what working men are saying in the engineering trades; for instance, I do not usually go to those in the higher ranks to find out. If I wanted to find out what the humble soldier from a humble locality wanted; I should never dream of asking his commanding officer.

Mr. Hogg: I was not a commanding officer at any time. All I said was that I had had command of men, which is a very different thing.

Mr. Buchanan: You said you had men under you. There may be a technical difference, but in simple ordinary working class language you were their boss, and you would be about the last man I should talk to in order to learn what the men were thinking. If I were in your regiment, knowing your Tory background and history and your past——

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Williams, whether those remarks are addressed to you or to me?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) should remember that when he says "you" he is addressing me.

Mr. Buchanan: The point made by the hon. Member was that he had had men under his command and he proceeded to build up an argument On the basis of knowing these men. All I seek to do, is to prove that he was less likely to know anything about what the men under his command wanted. If I were under his command, knowing his background, I say frankly that, regarding him as the boss, I should play up to him. After all, privileges are privileges, and I should play up to him and tell him the best story of anybody in the regiment; but from the real point of view the story would have no value at all, it would not count. I repeat that all we are asking for here is that what the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street took for himself in his day should be given to all soldiers as a proper legal right. We say that an ordinary soldier getting his seven days' leave and home in a Glasgow tenement—his wife living in a slum and anxious to move out of that slum—should be able to go to a political meeting and to say that there should be an end to slumdom. Surely there is nothing wrong in that. He should have the right to challenge a Socialist Member who has been inactive in looking after his division, or the right to challenge a Tory Member who has been inactive in looking after his division, saying to him, "Why have you not represented me in my day to day work when I have left my wife and family behind?" Would the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith), for whom personally I have a

terrific regard, resent a soldier going now to the Central Division of Glasgow, where the Member takes no interest in affairs at all, and asking him, "Why?" He would resent it least of all.
We are not asking that the soldier should criticise the General Staff, not that he should enter into questions of high policy about the movement of troops. Frankly, I often think that in this country and in this House we often indulge in too much easy talk about movements in this war. That is very different from discussing the issues that these folk want to discuss. Already it is done by soldiers. I have seen them at political meetings. I have seen a colleague of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) addressing a meeting in my city at which there were many members of the Armed Forces present. I have seen the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) addressing meetings at which soldiers were present. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are allowed to be present."] They are allowed to attend the meetings, but I ask for more. I ask that they should be allowed to take part in discussions. The other Sunday at the Mound, Edinburgh, I was present at a Labour party meeting, and I watched soldiers present asking questions. They were asked very politely and fairly by military policemen to desist. They were asking questions about matters which they thought concerned them. I feel that soldiers are much better engaged in using their brains in a political discussion than, possibly, loafing about in a drinking club. They were in the open air, they were using their brains and using their talents, and I could not see that they were doing anything wrong. I thought they were making themselves better soldiers and better citizens. For the life of me I cannot see any reason why, in a modern State, there should be opposition to this proposal, and I trust that the Government will note the offer of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown), with that moderation for which he is famed, of a suggestion about the civil servants. That is the way we usually take in Britain, the way of compromise. Decent compromise is the soul of politics.
I would like to say a word or two about party politics. We are told that people are sick of party politics; I am sick of the lack of party politics. I want the open clash of opinion, the clash between human beings and the clash of thought. That


means something, and not this nambypambiness of calling us all a happy family without the clash of opinion. To limit or to take that clash away from a soldier is wrong. The exercise of politics is not a thing that politicians should sneer at. The occupation of a Member of Parliament is as honourable as that of a soldier, and taking part in politics is not beneath the dignity of a soldier. It is good, because it makes him a better man and a better future citizen.

Mr. Stephen: I am surprised at the length of the Debate on this Clause. I should have thought that the younger section would at once have accepted it. The other Sunday I was speaking, and at question time there were soldiers who took part in the meeting by asking questions. I see no reason why they should not be permitted to do so, but if the military police had been there, they would probably have intervened, as seems to have happened at the Mound. When my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was speaking about the meeting he addressed, hon. Members on the other side said, "That is allowed." Evidently hon. Members thought that it should be allowed—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is allowed."] In fact, it is not allowed. Military policemen stopped the men when they were putting their questions. It is no use the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) saying that it is allowed when the military policemen are stopping it.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Members of the Forces who wanted to put questions were making speeches and, in the eyes of the law, that is not allowed.

Mr. Stephen: Military policemen, acting in accordance with Army Regulations, stop these members of the Forces from asking questions.

Mr. Hammersley: On a point of Order. Is it not possible to ask questions without making a speech?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. Stephen: The hon. Member for Oxford said that soldiers did not want party politics. If this Amendment is accepted and the soldiers do not want politics, nothing will happen. No harm will be done. If the soldiers wish it, they

are fully entitled to have this right. What we have now is a conscript Army. The citizens of this country have been taken into the Army, and not only are they being called upon to give military service, but their political privileges, unless this Clause is accepted, are being taken from them, I cannot understand why the War Office is hesitating about the Clause. I know that members of the Forces of my point of view will take part in meetings, whatever decision is taken here today, and will be willing to undergo any penalty that may be imposed upon them in connection with such activity. It is reasonable for the War Office to accept this moderate and reasonable Clause. Hon. Members seem to think that a soldier should be allowed to ask questions at meetings. I put it to them that he also should be at liberty to go on to the platform. If an officer gets leave to fight an election, he goes on to the platform. It is true that he may not go on in his uniform, but I would recall that one hon. Member put his photograph in uniform upon his election address, and no action was taken by the War Office about that contravention of the Regulations. The ordinary decent way of dealing with this matter is to give the citizens of our country the right which they have always enjoyed in the past of taking part in political controversy even though, in the stress of national emergency, they are conscripted into the service of the Crown. I cannot understand the hesitation of the War Office in accepting the Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: I am intervening in this matter only because the course which the Debate has taken makes it abundantly clear that two things are necessary. One is that we should come back to the Clause and discuss it, and the second is that it is time somebody took part in the Debate who knows something about it.

Mr. Stephen: The wise man of Gotham at last.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: The form of this Clause calls for comment. There are a number of ways in which the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) could have raised the matter, but out of them all he chose to take a special exception to the words:
Conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline.


thereby recognising that taking part in political activity as such is a breach of discipline. As to the second point, if it be true that there is this great urge among the Armed Forces to express themselves, it is not unlikely, and it may be not unreasonable to assume, that in the vast Army which we have at the present time, during three and a half years of war, some members of it would have attempted to express themselves in that way, thereby bringing the rigour of this supposed law upon them. However, in the whole of the time that the war has gone on, not one soldier has ever been charged with making a political speech.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the hon. and gallant Member aware that accusations are not made against such people but that M.I.5 puts its finger on them?

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: That interruption is not relevant to the Clause which we are discussing. I was only telling the Committee that throughout the whole of the war not one soldier has been charged with making a political speech.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: How does the hon. and gallant Member know?

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: Since I am asked, I may remind the hon. Member that I said it was time that somebody who knew something about it took part in the Debate. The great charm of Section 40 is that it is very elastic. It is equally the charm of the present position. If we do not try to make these matters rigid we shall find they work perfectly well, and it is because we have avoided making rigid rules as to what people may or may not do that we have had no trouble at all. I ask the Committee to avoid trying to define precisely what may or may not be done by members of the Armed Forces in this respect. It is by being elastic, by give and take on all sides and the exercising of common sense that we have come so far, and will come right the way through, without any trouble.

Mr. Driberg: The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken make a very interesting legalistic point, but I think that the broad issue is covered by the wording of the Clause and explains itself naturally to the minds of most hon. Members. It is true, generally speaking, that the soldier of the present

day is interested in politics and would like to be able, on occasion, to express himself if he wished to do so. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) made a couple of points which I should like to take up. He said that soldiers were not interested in party politics any longer. That may or may not be so, but in any case, party politics, as we know, are in abeyance for the duration: soldiers would no doubt be interested in discussing non-controversial matters like the Catering Wages Bill. But the hon. Member went on to suggest that soldiers were not interested in politics generally, in broad political issues apart from party politics.

Mr. Hogg: If the hon. Member will forgive me I will tell him that that is not what I said. I said that soldiers were interested in discussing politics, but they did not want to take part in politics outside their units. I said they were constantly discussing politics with their officers—despite the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan).

Mr. Driberg: The impression that I got from the hon. Member's speech was very different. He said that one thing soldiers disliked and avoided was the political soldier.

Mr. Hogg: He is the man who takes part in politics outside his unit. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh! "] I tried to make it abundantly clear, and if I did not do so, I shall say it again, that the political soldier is the man who takes part in politics outside his unit.

Mr. Driberg: I am glad to have given the hon. Member an opportunity of making himself clear, and to welcome him to the fold. There is even weightier testimony than his that the soldier in the Middle East is interested in broad political issues. May I recall that the Minister of State in the Middle East, broadcasting last December, said how very keenly the troops were discussing the Beveridge Report? The hon. Member also suggested that, because in past centuries, from the seventeenth century onwards, it had been a tradition to keep the Army out of politics, which may very well have been a wholesome tradition at certain times, that principle should still apply. I differ entirely from him. You have to judge these matters in relation to the whole social environment. The standard of


education among our people has gone up so enormously in the last century, and you have now so many millions of non-professional and non-Regular soldiers in the Army, that I do not think that that argument can be seriously considered as valid any longer.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) made two points which again, I thought, slightly confused rather than clarified the issue. He said he had been visiting units in the desert and that they had had interesting discussions about politics and so on. I also have visited many units and talked to them under the Army education scheme and in various other ways. I quite agree that they are interested in talking about politics but what we are discussing now is their freedom to talk politics off duty. We are not discussing discussion groups, A.B.C.A. or anything like that, so let us keep to the point. Finally, the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street deprecated the whole idea of political armies, which; he said, were such a regrettable phenomenon on the Continent—that benighted place. I would only direct hon. Members' eyes to the East, where the most highly political army in the world has been fighting a magnificent battle for the last year and more. The Red Army soldier knows very well what he is fighting for and he loves what he knows.

Captain Poole: I must confess that when I came in and read this Clause I was not greatly enamoured of it, but as the Debate has proceeded and I have heard the objections from the other side, my heart has been strangely warmed towards it, noting in the arguments adduced so many of the arguments I have heard during the time I have been in the Army, which is now some 3½ years. We have to remember in considering this matter that these Regulations were framed when our Army consisted of perhaps 200,000 men who voluntarily went into the Army, knowing that in so doing they renounced their rights to certain things, and that they renounced their rights to take part in political discussion. The position is totally different to-day. We are compulsorily enlisting the butcher, the baker and the blacksmith, people of all classes and types in this country; we are compelling them to go into the Army, and compelling them, married and single, to

renounce their rights and privileges in these respects. I do not think you can justify asking them to renounce their rights and privileges. In fact, my experience is that you definitely cannot. The suggestion has been made that men do not want this right, that it is not desired by the men serving in the Forces. In that case, as was so aptly put by my hon. Friend below the Gangway, there will be no harm done if it is conceded. My experience has not been such; it has been to the contrary. May I tell the Committee what has been the greatest difficulty during the time I have been serving? It has been to cold-shoulder men, and to stop men raising political discussions with me, because in every mess to which I go, as soon as it is found that I am a Member of this House, men desire to discuss the current political questions with me.

Mr. Hogg: Why should they not?

Captain Poole: Because they are not interested in politics, the hon. Member says.

Mr. Hogg: I never said that. [Interruption.]

Captain Poole: When the hon. Member has finished his sub-committee meeting with other Members, I will go on.

Mr. Hogg: Mr. Hoggrose——

Captain Poole: I do not propose to give way. That courtesy was not extended to me from the other side. I am only advancing that argument in order to show that throughout the Service there is genuine interest in current political questions.

Mr. Hogg: Of course there is. No one said there was not.

Captain Poole: I hope the hon. Member does not conduct his law cases on this basis. The fact that there is such interest in current political questions brings me to this point of the hon. Member and those who spoke against this Amendment. I want to confine this discussion into the narrow sphere of discussion between men. They are not prepared to allow, as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has said, that when that man goes home on leave and is then a free agent in most respects, he cannot go along and have a discussion on politics with another man because as soon as he has a discussion


with a civilian in the street he is then talking part in political controversy. [Interruption.] I say "Yes," and as soon as a group gathers around in Hyde Park and a dozen people get round to hear the arguments, it becomes a political discussion and the serving man is taking part in political controversy. I am not a lawyer, thank goodness, but I think it is elementary to an ordinary mind that that is bound to happen. If two men start arguing other men gather round, and you very soon get a political discussion. If it is right for two men to argue in that way, why should it be wrong for two soldiers and two civilians to discuss the same question? [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not wrong."] But it is wrong. I do not want to be tempted into getting out of Order, but the suggestion has been made that we should not make this thing too rigid, that if we do not define it too closely everything will go on all right. My experience is that everything goes on all right provided the sentiments expressed are not of a particular type. [Interruption.] I am saying that advisedly, with full cognisance of all it means. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] The hon. Member says "Rubbish," but I am speaking out of the depth of a full experience in these things.

Mr. Hogg: So am I.

The Deputy-Chairman: May I remind the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Captain Poole) of the fact that it is much better to allow an hon. Member to put his own points and not to interrupt each other, or to try, possibly, to incite other people?

Captain Poole: I will follow that point, Mr. Williams. It has been suggested that there have been no cases in this war in which a man has been pulled up for indulging in political controversy. That of course is quite untrue. The hon. and gallant Member who made the statement, if he does not know it is untrue, has been sadly out of touch with what has been taking place.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: May I be allowed to answer that?

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: On a point of Order, Mr. Williams. The suggestion was that I had made an untrue statement. May I not be allowed to reply to that?

The Deputy-Chairman: Not at this time.

Captain Poole: I made no statement that the hon. and gallant Member had made an untrue statement. What I said was that he was sadly out of touch with what was taking place in the Army if he made that allegation. He knows whether he has made an untrue statement or whether he is out of touch with what is taking place. I would like to give two illustrations that this thing is taking place. One of the funniest experiences that I had in this connection was on going to a mess in the South of England in the early days of the war. I always do my best not to make it known that I am a Member of this House. It has a nuisance value. As any serving Member will agree, the biggest liability he has, so far as his military career is concerned, is that he is a Member of this House. In this mess, after I had been there two nights the president of the mess committee came to me and said, "I hear you are a Member of the House of Commons." I said, "Well, yes, Sir, I am," He said, "I am so glad, because I am the chairman of the so-and-so Conservative and Unionist Association." He did not know that I was a Labour Member. He treated me to two drinks that evening. The next day he found out that I was not a Conservative and Unionist Member of this House, and he did not speak to me for the rest of the time I was there.
The second instance, which is far more serious, and which has some bearing on this question, occurred just prior to the entry of Russia into this war. A very excellent discussion group was formed in a certain unit to which I was attached, and a discussion was to be held on the Balkan situation. One of the members of the A.T.S. staff who was excellent at pen work made an announcement by drawing a map with the Russian flag—the hammer and sickle—and on the other side the Union Jack. On the bill she put, "The Balkans; which shall it be?" The person responsible for that poster was called before the commanding officer and asked by what earthly right he dare put the hammer and sickle flag adjacent to the Union Jack, Russia not having then entered the war. The man was disciplined on this account. That man has left that unit. That mail could not get any promotion in that unit. He was a marked


man because of that. There was no charge brought against him but, as my hon. Friend himself knows, there are cleverer ways of dealing with a man in the Army than by bringing charges against him.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must remind the hon. and gallant Member that this new Clause applies only to officers and men off duty. If we are to engage in stories of personal recollections as to what happened in Army messes, it is clearly going too wide of the actual Clause.

Captain Poole: I only sought to prove that if a man now takes part in political controversy, he does lay himself open perhaps, not to the laying of a charge, but to bringing down upon his own head unfortunate and unpleasant consequences. I think it would be deplorable if the whole Army started indulging in mass political conversations and discussions. There is no fear of that. Those who oppose this Clause themselves say there is no such fear. I feel that the man who has gone into the Army and has a wife and family, domestic responsibilities and a stake in the future of this country should have the right to go back to his home and take part in whatever discussions may be taking place having a bearing on the present situation in the country and the future of this country and should be relieved in so doing from any unfortunate consequences.

Sir Alfred Beit: I want to support some of the observations made by some of my hon. Friends on this side and to raise the point of view so far as the Air Force is concerned, which is also covered by this Measure. In the 3½ years during which I have had the privilege of serving in the Air Force, I found, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) found in the Army, no outstanding feeling among the rank and file that they were being badly treated in this respect. As it seems to me, the reason in the Air Force was that adequate arrangements were made for them to ventilate their own feelings. I can give a very good example which came to my notice only the day before yesterday, when I had a letter from an administrative officer of a very big Air Force station, in which he told me he had succeeded in creating a debating society attended by 500 members of the Royal Air Force of his unit weekly, which was

addressed by people of all parties and of all political leanings, and in which the Group Captain, unlike the officer to whom the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Captain Poole) referred, took his place on even terms with the Communist present in that unit. He asked me if I would have the opportunity of going to address a meeting or lead a debate, and said that the men would have ample opportunity of expressing their views.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: But that was not a public meeting.

Sir A. Beit: No, but the men were off duty. The point I make is this: The hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) admitted that soldiers, and for that matter airmen, are entitled to write to papers, can if they are fortunate enough stand for Parliament, and can hold meetings among themselves, and their only complaint was they could not address public meetings. I must say, in passing, that I would have thought that this Clause would have been more properly moved in peace-time, when there was something like genuine party politics in this country. The only thing that serving men are precluded from doing is to take part in political meetings. The hon. Member said that the one thing they were interested in was their own future: that is natural since they are human beings; but these matters can be far better discussed among themselves, with complete freedom for all points of view. That I understand is what happens to-day in all Service units of the Royal Air Force, and I understand that from the men of the Air Force there is no demand for further political rights.

Mr. Gallacher: I have had considerable experience in connection with this question of the rights of soldiers to participate in public meetings. When hon. Members on the other side say that soldiers are not continually thinking about politics, they are quite right. The soldiers are too busy training and fighting to be thinking all the time about politics. The workers in the factories are not thinking all the time about politics; they are too busy working. But I ask hon. Members, if the worker at a particular moment is earnestly agitated about some question, has he the right to express his opinion about it? He has. If a soldier is seriously and earnestly agitated about some


question that affects his own life and the life of this country generally, has he the right to express his opinion about it? No. That is the question. No one has suggested that if you go to any section of the Army the soldiers will at once start shouting, "We want to talk about politics." But when such a question as the Beveridge Report comes up they are interested immediately, and when they come home on leave they want to go to public meetings and express their opinions and ask questions about it. And when they come home and find that things are bad, they want to do the same thing.
I have raised this matter time and again in this House. Members on the other side adopted the same attitude as they are adopting now on another occasion when I raised the subject. I speak at enormous meetings every week-end. There are airmen, soldiers and sailors always present. They ask questions. If they are committing an offence by asking questions, obviously I am committing an offence by answering them. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Oh yes, I am an accessory to the fact. I found that when I went to meetings in different parts of the country there would be two civilian policemen and two military policemen at the door of the meeting hall, stopping soldiers from coming in. I raised the matter here, and I got a decision from the War Office that soldiers would be allowed to attend political meetings but that they must sit dumb. Will the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), or his partner in the attempt to suppress the soldiers, justify before any soldier, and will the hon. Member for South East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) justify before any member of the Air Force, such a decision? Imagine one of us attending a political meeting, on a day when all the workers are working and the hall is filled with Navy men, soldiers and airmen on leave, and we have the privilege of talking for half an hour, an hour, or an hour and a half to these lads. Is it not obvious that by allowing them to come and then making them sit quietly we are saying to them, "We cannot trust you; we are afraid that if you take part in politics, once you are among your fellow workers you will do something in politics that we do not like"?
I have brought up in this House a number of cases of men, corporals, lance-corporals and what hot, who were credited

by their commanding officers with being the very best of soldiers. I said on one occasion, when I read out one or two characters, that these men had characters that would have got them into the Kingdom of Heaven but that would not keep them in the British Army. Why? Because they had participated in political meetings. They were not charged. It is not done that way. Has the hon. Member heard of M.I.5 You may in the old days have seen some of the old Chicago pictures, in which when a finger was put on a man he was just taken for a ride. M.I.5 simply puts its finger on a man, and nothing can be done. The commanding officer may consider him one of the finest soldiers he has ever had under him: he may read out the finest character for him; but nothing can be done. If the hon. Member desires it, I will give him a list of names, and give him the job of fighting to get them back to the Army. There is absolutely nothing against them but the fact that they have participated in political meetings.
I ask Members on the other side to forget their prejudices, to forget, if they can, for the moment their party politics, and to treat the soldiers as they deserve to be treated, with the same respect as the workers demand. The soldiers are fighting, or training to fight. They are ready when called upon to give their lives in the defence of this country. Yet Members on the other side persist in saying, "Yes, we will let them attend meetings "—that had to be fought for—"but we will not let them take part in them." It was a common thing at open air meetings in every part of the country, before that decision of the War Office, if soldiers and sailors just stood there, to see military police go up to them and ask them to move on. No Member on the other side, no official at the War Office, neither the Secretary of State nor any of his junior Ministers, can justify such an attitude towards the soldiers as that of saying, "You can attend a political meeting, but you must give an imitation while you are there of a dummy at Madame Tussaud's." I ask Members to face this question intelligently, realising that soldiers are thinking men. If they have a right to attend a political meeting, they are already participating in politics. Attendance is in itself participation. Why do Members on the other side, some of whom are intelligent, support the War Office in saying that these men


should be allowed to participate in political meetings to the extent that they can attend, but that they must not ask questions or express opinions at these meetings? That can never be justified before any body of soldiers, sailors or airmen.

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown) made some remarks about the German army. He seemed quite unaware that officers of the German army all have to be members of the Nazi Party, and all wear the party badge and give political lectures to the troops. They all have to be of the same party, and there is no liberty for other parties to speak either, in the Russian army or the German army. If an officer playing football is knocked down by a Tommy, they are playing a game, and they are playing in mufti. If an officer was knocked down by a Tommy in uniform, that would be a very grave breach of discipline. If an officer or a man speaks at a political meeting when in mufti, it is very different from speaking in uniform. In uniform, it might lead to a grave breach of discipline, especially if the arguments get heated.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I would point out to the hon. and gallant Member that officers in the Army are not allowed to speak at political meetings, whether they are in uniform or not.

Mr. Bellenger: I think we ought to get the subject into its right perspective. The Debate has strayed from the correct perspective on numerous occasions. I am not at all sure that the object my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to achieve will be gained by this new Clause. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe), when he said that no soldier had been charged with making a political speech, was probably quite correct. I do not know whether he meant that his experience extended to summary trials as well as trials by court-martial. I rather imagine that he was referring, considering his position in the Judge Advocate General's Department, to courts-martial. But summary trial by a commanding officer is quite a different matter. I can well believe that a man would not be charged with making a political speech, but he might be charged with committing a breach of good order and military dis-

cipline. What is it that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) wants to achieve? If it is to allow troops to do what the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said, to go to public meetings, I do not think that at the present moment they are denied that right. My hon. and gallant Friend can correct me if I am wrong, but perhaps the Regulation is observed in the breach. I have attended Labour conferences and other political meetings when uniformed soldiers have got up on to the platform and spoken. If they are committing a breach of King's Regulations in doing that and they can be charged with a breach of discipline, the situation is intolerable. You have to draw the line somewhere. Obviously, if this Clause is accepted you cannot have a body of soldiers in a garrison town starting up a political meeting on their own. There are dangers inherent in that, and I imagine that under this Clause they would be permitted to do that. I occasionally disagree with the Prime Minister, but I agreed with him when he said that it would be very detrimental to the war effort if we had a divergence in the Army from the sword to the pen, which, presumably, includes oral public controversy.
I want my hon. and learned Friend to address his mind to this fact. The King's Regulation is wisely administered. I believe, generally, it is not administered in a harsh manner, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will declare that there is to be no distinction between an ordinary member of His Majesty's Forces and a Member of this House who happens for the time being to be in His Majesty's Forces. It is intolerable in spite of what the Prime Minister says if a Member of this House can engage in controversial matters either on or off duty such as an hon. Member of this House did recently and be exonerated from his actions, thereby giving the impression to the Army that there are favoured circumstances for those who happen to don uniform and who perhaps are not engaged all the time in military duties, but sometimes engaged in Parliamentary controversy.
I hope my hon. and learned Friend will clarify the point a little further. If the Prime Minister's dictum is allowed to stay where it is and members of His Majesty's Forces, because they happen to be Members of this House, can be permitted on


off-duty occasions to indulge in political controversy at public meetings then you have opened the door wide—as indeed it should be opened wide in such circumstances—to other members of His Majesty's Forces. I would limit my request to this. The line should be drawn between speeches of a subversive character and those of a character which are not subversive.

Mr. Davidson: Is not my hon. Friend aware that under the present law of the country to make a subversive speech on the platform whether as a member of the military forces or as a civilian is against the law?

Mr. Bellenger: I am well aware of that and I want to keep it in that position. I would not ask for the wide powers for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks because I believe that, if it were operated by irresponsible people—and there are some irresponsible people in the Armed Forces—it might be detrimental to the war effort. I had' experience in the last war in the ranks and as a commissioned officer and I have had experience in this war and I would say that the number of officers and men in the Armed Forces who want to engage in political controversy at public meetings is very small indeed. That does not mean to say that because they happen to be in a very small minority you should put them in a strait-waistcoat. I would say to my hon. and gallant Friend that he is misconceiving the situation if he thinks that they are the small minority who might be called politically conscious.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the hon. Member aware that it is possible that not a solitary soldier may want to discuss politics to-day but every soldier might want to discuss politics or something political next week? It is not something which is constant but something which is changing, and if they want to discuss politics they should have the right to do so.

Mr. Bellenger: They do discuss politics.

Mr. Gallacher: In public?

Mr. Bellenger: They are encouraged to discuss politics through A.B.C.A. which takes place every week. If they want to discuss politics they should discuss them in a responsible manner. If my hon. and gallant Friend is asking for this

right, which I believe the soldier has at the present time, to be extended so that the war effort can be impeded, it would be a very dangerous thing for our war effort and it would not react to the good of the Army.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Does the hon. Member say that I made that statement; that I have demanded that the war effort should be impeded?

Mr. Bellenger: The hon. and gallant Member made a speech of limited extent and we have to read some things into it, and I think that I am entitled to say that. If, however, I have misinterpreted what he said, I apologise. My hon. and gallant Friend has experience of the Air Force and must know that there is a danger inherent in making the special provision that he is trying to do in this manner. I would far rather have it as it is at the present time, that members, in uniform or in mufti, can speak at public meetings as they are doing at the present time.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: They cannot.

Mr. Bellenger: They do.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Then why not make it legal?

Mr. Bellenger: Is my hon. and gallant Friend so simple as to believe that if the Clause is accepted, the Army Act would not permit any charge being made against a man for speaking at a public meeting if the military authorities wished to take that action? I would far rather have the present situation. One has to observe discipline in a disciplined force, and the present position had better be left where it is. I know I am perhaps putting an unpopular point of view, but I think those who believe as strongly as I do in the freedom of the Forces and have expressed that opinion on numerous occasions should put the view in which they believe at the present moment. What I ask my hon. and learned Friend to do is to clear up the situation which was left in an unsatisfactory position regarding the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Captain Churchill), who is encouraging the Armed Forces to engage in controversy which might lead to a, breach of good order and military discipline.

Mr. Stokes: I do not want to detain the Committee by pulling to pieces the speech to which we have just listened. I am very much surprised at what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) said and he was extremely difficult to follow because he expressed so many different points of view at the same time. What was equally disappointing was to hear such reactionary sentiments from what I regard as the new Tory progressive party on the other side. It seems that they showed themselves in their true colours. I want to put a view which I have not heard in this Debate and to say something of my own experience as a soldier of the last war. The tragedy following the last war was that so many of us came back from the war with no real knowledge of the political controversies. There was a complete tragedy in Parliamentary elections and many people were blinded into following a course of events which afterwards they very much regretted. Our one hope is that after this war there will be sufficient of us left who fought in the last war to join forces with the progressive element who come out of the Armed Forces of the Crown to act together to get matters put right.
I do not know sufficiently what is or what is not allowed, but I know from letters I have received, and from the experiences of people who are still in the Army, that those who are politically interested feel very much this restriction which prevents them when not on duty from taking part in political activities in their own constituencies and elsewhere. I have had the honour on two occasions of being invited by commanding officers to address troops on duty. I put to them a point of view which is familiar to this House and the troops afterwards expressed great delight and said that they had never realised that point of view before. Surely it is most desirable that instead of filling up soldiers with dope all the time they should be given an opportunity, when on leave, of taking an active part in political activity. Therefore, I hope the Committee will see fit to support this new Clause and so ensure that when our fighting men come back again they will come back with a better political knowledge than those of us who were in the last war came back with.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I intervene in this discussion because of various points which have been placed before the Committee by officers regarding the actions of troops in certain circumstances. I served in the ranks in the last war and never rose above the rank of corporal, but my mind is eased by the knowledge that many notable persons in the world also did not rise above the rank of corporal, and so I wish to place my point of view before the Committee for their consideration. I recognise that we have a very fine type of man in this war, officers and other ranks. We have a type that cannot be excelled in any country in the world. But we must also recognise that these men are definitely of the opinion that every soldier who takes part openly in political meetings prejudices his well-being in his own unit. That is the accepted belief in the Army to-day, and it does not meet the point to say, as the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) said, that officers discuss these questions with their men. We have always had officers who have said, "Let us have a discussion on this. Drop the 'Sir' for the time being, and let us have a hearty man-to-man talk." But I for one would have never suggested at any such meeting anything which would have prejudiced my well-being in my unit.

Mr. McEntee: Yet the hon. Member never rose above the rank of corporal.

Mr. Davidson: I understand that I had particular ability in dealing with what were termed "fatigue squads," which did not come within the purview of an officer's duties. All that this Clause asks is that a man, whether he has joined voluntarily or not, whether he is imbued with a patriotic spirit or not—and many who will fight well would not be in the Army to-day if they had any other alternative—shall have the opportunity of political activity. You are saying to a man who has, perhaps, a family and who has to look to their well-being and future, "You must serve in the Army. You can have your discussions with the various members of your units, but you cannot go to a public meeting where civilians do not perhaps know your point of view, and tell them that you want your boy to be educated in a certain manner and your wife to receive a certain income above the starvation level which has existed in the


past." No ordinary soldier or N.C.O. will go with an easy conscience to a meeting where his superior is present and state a political view which he knows is diametrically opposed to the view of, say, his adjutant.

Mr. Hogg: Oh, yes.

Mr. Davidson: No, old soldiers are far too wise for that. We are saying to a man, "We shall utilise your services completely, and you must be prepared to make even the greatest sacrifice, but you shall not be allowed to express, when you are on leave, your opinion as to how the country shall be run." In that there is a danger. During four years in France in the last war there were quite a number of revolts that never came before the public eye. There were raids on Etaples by disgruntled and discontented soldiers and officers and certain officers' quarters even received Mills grenades because of the discontentment and disgruntlement of men who had no say as to where they were being pushed when they were being transferred from France to Mesopotamia.

Mr. Bull: Does the hon. Member suggest that they should have any say?

Mr. Davidson: I certainly do. If men serve three and a half years in muck, mud and blood and in their opinion find themselves being unfairly treated, without haying an opportunity to express their opinion—and that is the main point—except by violence, then violence takes place. But I am dealing with the political situation. If after serving their country these men, when on leave, are not allowed to express publicly on the platform an opinion with regard to the future well-being of their homes, the education of their children, and the well-being of their aged people, for whom they are making sacrifices, there will be created a greater danger than would exist if this new Clause were accepted. Under the Clause no subversive speech could be made by either a civilian or a soldier. The argument in that respect falls completely to the ground. There would be no lack of discipline among the officers and men of the British Army if they were given an opportunity to express their views on the fundamental issues which concern them. The main idea of the officers and men in the British Army is to get the job over and then establish a claim for the condi-

tions which they thoroughly deserve. We cannot establish those conditions unless we hear the mind of the Service men, and we cannot do that unless they are allowed to take their part on the political platform and express their points of view as any other free-born Britishers are allowed to do.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The Committee has listened to a very full Debate on a very interesting topic, and I hope I shall be forgiven if I intervene at this stage to answer the case that has been put by those who support the new Clause. I want to say at once that I shall have to disappoint the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid), because I am afraid the new Clause is not acceptable, for two reasons. In the first place, it seeks to add some words to Section 40 of the Army Act, but even assuming that the words were acceptable, the hon. and gallant Member would not achieve his object. Section 40 provides that every person subject to military law who commits any of the following offences, that is to say, is guilty of any act, conduct, disorder, or neglect to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable to certain punishments which are set out in the Section. The Section does not define the kind of conduct which is considered prejudicial to good order and military discipline. Taking part in political controversy could only be construed as an offence triable by court-martial in so far as the activity in question constituted a breach of a particular Regulation, and until steps are taken to secure either the repeal, the cancellation or the amendment of the Regulation in question, merely adding the words set out in the new Clause would not achieve the object which the hon. and gallant Member appears to desire.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: That matter could easily be put in order if the principle were accepted.

Mr. Henderson: I will deal with the point of substance in a moment. The question of political activity is regulated by King's Regulations, Paragraph 541, and it is that particular Regulation which limits the right of the individual soldier to take part in political controversy. I hope the Committee will allow me to


quote the Regulation, because I think we should have a complete picture before us in coming to a decision as to what should be done. The Regulation reads as follows:
No officer or soldier, or member of Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service, is permitted to take any active part in the affairs of any political organisation or party, either by acting as a member of a candidate's election committee or by speaking in public or publishing or distributing literature in furtherance of the political purposes of any such organisation or party, or in any other manner, until he or she has retired, resigned or been discharged, or in the case of a Field Marshal, until he has reliquished any appointment that he may be holding.
There are similar provisions in the King's Regulations governing the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. I admit that these Rules do in effect restrain serving personnel from taking an active part in the affairs of any political organisation or party. The Army traditionally has always in this country, with very limited exceptions, at any rate, sought to keep out of the party political arena and does accept the position that it is its duty to give complete loyalty to the State whatever Government is in power, irrespective of its party complexion. That is the fundamental basis of these Regulations in so far as they apply to political controversy. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone talked about the soldier, when he enters the Army, being muzzled for the duration of his service. Surely, that was something of an exaggeration. Officers and other ranks are not prevented from voting at the by-elections that may take place. [Interruption.] There is nothing in King's Regulations which prevents any officer or soldier from having the right to exercise his vote. There may be physical or geographical reasons which prevent him from exercising his right, but he is not deprived of it.

Mr. Stokes: Is not the Financial Secretary aware that most of the people in the Army are young men and that none of them has a vote?

Mr. Henderson: If the young men never had a vote, then a fortiori there is nothing in King's Regulations which deprives them of something which they never had.

Mr. Pritt: If it is right that they should have the vote, as we all agree, had they not better attend

a little political controversy in order to find out how to use it?

Mr. Henderson: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for referring to that point, because I was just coming to it. That is just what they are entitled to do. There is nothing in King's Regulations which prevents any officer or soldier from attending meetings of political organisations with a view to forming their own minds and deciding where their vote shall be cast.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Can an officer or soldier ask questions?

Mr. Henderson: Certainly, if the soldier were on leave and in mufti, and there were an election in his own constituency, in my view he would have the right to ask one of the candidates proper questions. The limitation that the soldier must not actively participate in organisations or parties whose objects are political——

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: On the word of the King's Regulations it is legitimate for any serving officer or man of any of the three Services to take an active part in any form of politics which is not organised. So far as the wording of the Regulation is concerned, he is entitled to do what he likes, provided it is not in connection with an organisation or a party.

Mr. Henderson: That presentation of the position as far as it goes is correct. Whether or not in a particular case the individual in question is over the borderline is a question of fact, and I cannot lay down definitely now on which side of the line he would be.

Sir R. Acland: How is it possible to have a public meeting which has not been organised by someone? If you have a public meeting, it must have been organised.

Mr. Henderson: I have tried to make it clear that there is nothing in the King's Regulations which prevents a soldier from attending a political meeting so long as he does not take an active part in it and goes there to obtain information for the benefit of his own mind. I think that if a soldier goes to a party political meeting at other times than at an election and asks controversial questions, he may be regarded as taking an active part in the meeting, and that would be forbidden.

Mr. Davidson: Is my hon. and learned Friend saying that a soldier who attends an election meeting is allowed to ask the candidate questions? Could he ask if the candidate was in favour of the removal of the War Secretary for incompetence?

Mr. Henderson: The Regulation to an extent has been purposely left vague. The fact that we have been told by a number of Members that soldiers have been asking questions shows that the War Office has administered the Regulation in a very sensible way. At any rate, this is the present position, which there is no intention of weakening. Indeed, as the Committee will realise from what was said by the Prime Minister a few days ago, if anything is done at all, it will be by way of strengthening the present position by bringing it into closer uniformity with the Regulations governing the Royal Navy.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Do I understand that the Prime Minister's statement can be construed as a threat that very likely additional restrictions will be placed upon serving men?

Mr. Henderson: No, I should not regard it as a threat but as an indication of an intention. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) raised the position of Members of Parliament who are serving officers. I am sure he did not intend to advocate that any steps should be taken which would prevent a serving officer who happened to be a Member of Parliament from carrying out his responsibilities in his capacity as Member of Parliament. I am sure that would be most undesirable, and that is one of the exceptions to the general rule laid down in King's Regulation 541. It would not be in Order to refer further to the actual episode to which my hon. Friend referred, but I think the Regulations have been conformed to by Members of Parliament serving in the Forces.

Mr. Bellenger: Since when have Members of Parliament serving with the Forces been exempt from the rule applied to ordinary members of the Forces? Does it date from the Prime Minister's speech?

Mr. Henderson: It may be a matter of argument whether it is desirable to allow those who are serving in the Forces to stand as Parliamentary candidates, but I have always understood that my hon. Friend, who is a great champion of the

soldier, would be the last to suggest that Parliamentary candidates should not be drawn from the ranks of the Army. In order to make that possible, I should have thought it a very desirable step on the part of the Army Council to decide that Members of Parliament should not be kept within the limitations set out in Regulation 541. The converse would be that no member of His Majesty's Forces should be a prospective candidate while in that position. I am sure my hon. Friend would not desire to have that position. I have endeavoured to put the position as I see it, and I am afraid it is impossible to accept the Clause.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: We are actually so near to agreement that I should like to make an appeal to my hon. and learned Friend. It has been indicated quite clearly by various speakers in this discussion that what I am asking for is being done every day. It has been stated that the Army Regulations which concern this matter are being deliberately contravened all the time. That being so all the War Office has to do instead of keeping one eye shut is to legalise the situation. It will be seen that the concession for which I am asking is only a small one. The Financial Secretary has already admitted that there should be no reason why political discussions should not go on in camps among the men themselves, in study circles and such like. He has also stated to-day, what I did not appreciate before, that soldiers on leave can ask questions at public meetings.

Mr. Henderson: I cannot allow the hon. and gallant Gentleman to get away with that. I said that a serving soldier in the event of an election in his constituency would be entitled to go and exercise his rights of citizenship.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: The fact remains that in certain circumstances members of the Services can now ask questions at public meetings. Over and above that, we know that members of the Services are permitted to write to the Press, but they cannot speak in public what they write. That is practically the only difference now between us. I would make a last appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman to make this small concession which will give an immense satisfaction to the Services, otherwise I am afraid we shall have to divide.

Mr. Pritt: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider the real position. The ordinary soldier goes to an ordinary political meeting and asks ordinary questions in an ordinary sensible fashion as he would do if he had not been a soldier. He might get into minor trouble for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, on the reading of the Regulations—which is not easy. The matter might be reported and the man's officer might say, "I am not going to do anything, because I think it is

Division No. 15.
AYES.



Acland, Sir R. T. D
Foster, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Bowles, F. G.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Stephen, C.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Gallacher, W.
Stokes, R. R.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Granville, E. L.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Buchanan, G.
Horabin, T. L.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Daggar, G.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mack, J. D.
Viant, S. P.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Maxton, J.
White, H. (Derby, N.E.)


Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
Pritt, D. N.



Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)
Sloan, A.
Captain Cunningham-Reid and




Mr. Kendall.




NOES.


Agnew, Comdr. P. G.
Etherton, Ralph
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Albery, Sir Irving
Frankel, D.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)


Amman, C. G.
Furness, Major S. N.
Kimball, Maj. L.


Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ.)
Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.
Lancaster, Lieut.-Col. C. G.


Baillie, Major Sir A. W. M.
Gardner, B. W.
Lawson, J. J.


Barnes, A. J.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Gates, Major E. E.
Leonard, W.


Beaumont, Major Hn. R. E. B. (P'ts'h)
George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'b'ke)
Levy, T.


Beechman, N. A.
Gibson, Sir C. G.
Lipson, D. L.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Gledhill, G.
Lloyd, C. E. (Dudley)


Bennett, Sir P. F. B, (Edgbaston)
Glyn, Sir R. G. C.
Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Locker-Lampson, Commander O. S.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Loftus, P. C.


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Oliver.


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
McCallum, Major D.


Bull, B. B.
Grigg, Rt. Hon. Sir P. J. (Cardiff, E.)
McCorquodale, Malcolm S.


Butcher, Lieut. H. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Makins, Brig. Gen. Sir E.


Cadogan, Major Sir E.
Groves, T. E.
Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A.


Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)
Guy, W. H.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Campbell, J. D. (Antrim)
Hammersley, S. S.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.


Cary, R. A
Hannah, I. C.
Messer, F.


Cazalet, Col. V. A.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Mills, Colonel J. D. (New Forest)


Challen, Flight-Lieut. C.
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Molson, A. H. E.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Sir C. M.
Montague, F.


Cobb, Captain E. C.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry.


Colegate, W. A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir Stafford
Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.
Mott-Radclyffe, Capt. C. E.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Hewlett, T. H.
Muff, G.


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Higgs, W. F.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hill, Prof. A. V.
Oldfield, W. H.


De Chair, Capt. S. S.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Paling, W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Dobbie, W.
Hotline, J. H. (Silvertown)
Petherick, Major M.


Dodd, J. S.
Hopkinson, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Douglas, F. C. R.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Peto, Major B. A. J.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. R. (C. Ldn.)
Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Pilkington, Captain R. A.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. (Kens'gt'n, N.)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Dunn, E.
Isaacs, G. A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Ede, J. C.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Radford, E. A.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Rankin, Sir R.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Jennings, R.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Ellis, Sir G.
John, W.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

reasonable for a man to ask questions." It might work out well in practice, but is it not a most undesirable position? Will not the hon. and learned Gentleman say that the War Office will consider it again, and try to arrive at some more definite view which the troops and the public can follow?

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 195.

Rickards, G. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ridley, G.
Storey, S.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Ritson, J.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (Northwich)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Watson, W. McL.


Rothschild, J. A. de
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. H. (Richmond)


Rowlands, G.
Sutcliffe, H.
White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)


Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.
White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)


Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)
Tate, Mavis C.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Btaydon)


Salt, E. W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Thomas, I. (Keighley)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C. (York)


Schuster, Sir G. E.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir K. (Woolwich, W.)


Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h &amp; Selk'k)
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Shakespeare, Sir G. H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Shute, Col. Sir J. J.
Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Staff'd)
Wright, Group Capt. J. (Erdington)


Simmonds, O. E.
Thurtle, E
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Smiles, Lt.-Cot. Sir W. D.
Tomlinson, G.



Smith, T. (Normanton)
Touche, G. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Snadden, W. McN.
Turton, R. H.
Mr. Boulton and Mr. Pym.


Southby, Comd. Sir A. R. J.
Wakefield, W. W.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 108A of Army Act and s. 108A of Air Force Act.)

Section one hundred and eight A of the Army Act and section one hundred and eight A of the Air Force Act (which provide for billeting in cases of emergency) shall respectively have effect as if at the end of paragraph (c) of subsection (3) thereof there were inserted the following proviso:
Provided that in no case shall the inclusive price prescribed for breakfast, dinner, tea and supper be less than three shillings."—[Mr. Bellenger.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bellenger: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I should not have brought forward this new Clause if there had been any other way of dealing with this matter on Second Reading. The purpose of the Clause is to improve the rates of billeting allowances. At the beginning of the war the allowance paid to the public for billeting troops was 2s. 3d. a day—breakfast 8d., dinner 11d., tea 3d. and supper 5d. Since that time the rates have been improved, so that to-day the inclusive allowance is 2s. 7d. a day. My point is that that is not sufficient, and I would illustrate it by showing the anomaly which can arise in the following circumstances. A soldier, an airman or a seaman when he goes on leave is given a ration allowance of 3s. a day. Perhaps he may hand it over to his wife when he gets home. When that soldier's leave is ended, if another soldier should be billeted in that home the wife will get an allowance of only 2s. 7d. a day for him. I think my hon. and learned Friend is fully conversant with the point, and I hope he is going to meet me to some extent. I suggest that these billeting rates, which have been unchanged for two years, ought to be in-

creased. It would certainly throw an additional charge on the Army, but I do not think it would prove expensive, and even if it did I suggest that we have to deal fairly with the members of the public who are providing food and attendance for members of the Armed Forces and that they should not be paid less than the allowance by way of rations now given to members of the Armed Forces when they go on leave.

Mr. A. Henderson: I am afraid that it will not be possible for me to accept this new Clause. My hon. Friend knows that the prices to which he has referred are not fixed by Statute but by Regulation, at any rate during a national emergency. It follows, therefore, that those Regulations can be altered at any time when a rise or fall in prices justifies certain action, and it is impossible to impose restrictions through the medium of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act. As my hon. Friend knows, the Regulations have to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, either of which may present an Address for their annulment within 40 days of their being laid. At the same time, the problem to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention has been under the active consideration of the War Office, not only in regard to food prices, but also in regard to other elements, for example, accommodation, including payment for fuel, etc. While I cannot make any promise, I can assure my hon. Friend that I will do my best, in conjunction with the other Departments concerned, to ensure that an early decision is reached, and in those circumstances I hope he will see his way to withdraw the Clause.

Mr. Bellenger: On that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE)

War Production Undertakings (Government-Nominated Directors)

Mr. Simmonds: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order in Council, dated 22nd March, 1943, made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 and 1940, substituting a new Regulation for Regulation 54CA of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 23rd March, be annulled.
In moving this humble Prayer, I ought to say that I am supported by no fewer than 128 Members of this House, and although the majority of them are members of the Conservative Party, we do enjoy the support of six Liberals and one Independent Member. I feel that it is to be regretted that there is, in fact, such widespread concern over matters which are akin to the one we are about to discuss, but are yet not of it, because as a result of this fact there have been many misconceptions both as to this particular Regulation and as to the motive we hold in moving this Prayer. Indeed, some organs of the Press of the Left have rushed unduly to conclusions. I have seen it stated that this Prayer arises from the fact that the Government have purchased the shares in Messrs. Short Brothers, but hon. Members will recall that the original Prayer, to which so many of my hon. Friends added their names, against Regulation 196, which was the forerunner of Regulation 437, was, in fact, on the Order Paper before ever the Government had taken over the shares of Messrs. Short Brothers. The question, therefore, does not arise from that.
Nor indeed does our moving this Prayer constitute an attack on any Minister or number of Ministers, for the House will well recall that hon. Members, particularly on this side of the House, have been studying the implications of some of these

Orders for a number of months past, and have, on occasion, moved Prayers, when they felt it their duty so to do. It is a question of principle alone that we raise to-day. It may be asked whether, if we approached the Government and secured withdrawal of Statutory Rule and Order 196, it is necessary to pray against the new Order. It would have been better from our point of view if we had been able to take a less drastic course, but as many hon. Members will know, the only way in which the House of Commons can raise this issue is to pray for the annulment of the Order. We thus had no other opportunity than that which, in fact, we have taken.
Before I proceed to analyse the matter, may I draw the attention of the House to one or two facts which I think ought to affect the attitude of hon. Members to these Orders? The first point is about the very interesting observations made by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, in the Point of Ayr law case. I quote from "The Times" law report of 31st March. My hon. and learned Friend, dealing with an Order very similar to the one we now have under review, said:
The effect of the general Regulations was to make the Minister the sole judge. The production of the Order itself in proper form was prima facie evidence that the prerequisites had been complied with. Even if the Minister had made an Order under a misapprehension the court still could not interfere.
I would emphasise the last sentence. Again, only last week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Aircraft Production, in reply to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) dealing with these matters, when there was some criticism of an action which my right hon. and learned Friend had taken, said:
I am afraid that Parliament has decided the steps which should be taken in such cases as the present, and unless other and new decisions are taken, I must operate within the ambit of these regulations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1943; col. 158, Vol. 388.]
This is no longer June, 1940, we may thank God, and we have some opportunity in these days of discussing these Orders severally as they come out; we have not to take hundreds of them at one sitting and without performing what I venture to say is the rightful and necessary function of the House of Commons of examining the Orders which are brought before us. I respectfully submit


to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House of Commons, that the observations of the Solicitor-General and the Minister of Aircraft Production show that there is a real duty laid upon each hon. Member to examine carefully the Orders which the Executive bring before us.
I should state what are the present powers possessed by the Government with regard to the handling of difficult questions of management, particularly in industry. First, a Minister can appoint a controller of the undertaking, and this he will do under Regulation 55, paragraph 4. It is not my intention to read out the individual paragraphs unless I am pressed so to do, because I am anxious to be as brief as possible. If, when a controller is appointed, some of the directors of the undertaking are obstreperous, there is power in the hands of the Minister for the replacement of obstructive directors, under Regulation 78, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (a). If, further, the Minister is unable, as he thinks, to satisfy himself as to the efficient running of the undertaking in the national interest, he may order the purchase of the shares of the undertaking, under Regulation 78, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (b). These, then, are the weapons, up to date, in the Ministerial armoury. They have been adequate for a not inconsiderable number of Ministers for nearly three years, and yet we now have this new Rule and Order 437 brought before us.
What does the Rule permit a Minister to do? It says that, if a Minister thinks it wise in the interests of improving the efficiency of an undertaking so to do, he may force on to the board of that undertaking a number of directors, not exceeding three and in any event not constituting a majority, but subject to a highly ambiguous proviso relating to the magnitude of the financial investment which the State may have in the undertaking. In commerce, a substantial investor may ask, when he is investing money in any undertaking, that he shall have representation on the board. If, when investing money, he does not make that request, I think it would be conceded that he may, at a later date, request representation if he feels that the undertaking is not proceeding on sound lines and if he feels his financial interest to be in jeopardy. This opportunity has also been well established in the investment of

the State. I may cite as an example the case of the Suez Canal Company, where, when the Government invested money, they appropriately asked for representation on the board. Clearly, negotiation at the time of investment is a preferable course, but I submit that the State must have the right, even if it did not request it at the time of its investment, if there be good financial reason—I stress that point—of calling for its own nominees to be elected to or adopted on to the board.
It may be claimed that in the case of many of our war industries the undertakings did not desire to have the financial assistance which was proffered to them, indeed pressed upon them, by the State, but I feel, notwithstanding that fact, that if an undertaking did accept the money, there is an obvious case for the State having the right to call for representation on the board. But the point I make is this; as the Regulation now stands would these State directors be financial directors in the usually accepted sense of the word? I think the House will need to assure itself on this point, because that is the crux of the whole thing. It will want to be certain that they are not in fact administrative directors being forced on to the board by the back-staircase of a financial phantasy.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Would the hon. Member clear up one phrase? Would he explain to the House what he means by the phrase "financial directors"? What has he in mind?

Mr. Simmonds: I am not anxious to take up too much of the time of the House, but if I am asked, certainly I will reply. I would say that a financial director in the sense that I am using the word—and it is the usually accepted sense in commerce—is one who is placed upon the board because the owner of a certain interest in the business desires that that director should protect the financial investment.

Mr. Davies: He might know absolutely nothing about the business?

Mr. Simmonds: I would think it is clearly at the selection of the investor, but there must be many cases where, for instance, the financial director is a chartered accountant and has no knowledge at all of the affairs of the business. I think the term is generally recognised


throughout industry. Let me therefore examine this point as to whether these directors are financial or administrative directors. In paragraph (1) we have these words:
…for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the war production of the undertaking…
These words strongly suggest, to my mind, that these are administrative and not financial directors, and in this I am strengthened by reference to Statutory Rule and Order 196 where are these words about State directors:
…experienced in the direction of companies of a like character…
Why were these directors to be experienced in the direction of companies of a like character? Obviously because it was desired that they should be men who knew the type of business and who could play their full part in the direction of the undertaking.
But surely in the way we arrange these matters in this country, if there had been a financial issue and if these had been financial directors, the Treasury, very jealous of its rights in these matters, would certainly have asked to have its say or to have been represented. But if we refer now to paragraph (1) sub-paragraph (a), we see that the public moneys which may be invested in the company are public moneys which in the opinion of the competent authority are substantial in amount; that is to say, the Minister in the supply Department or whoever else is utilising this Order would himself decide whether the sums of money were substantial. It is perfectly obvious that if this is so, there must be a very wide circle of companies about which, if the Minister desires to place a director upon their board, he could say that in his opinion the investment of the State was substantial. He might bring himself reluctantly to accept his own view that the investment was substantial, but even if he jibbed at being persuaded by himself in this matter and thus to stretch the very elastic powers in this Order, he need be nothing daunted, for with a fine Gilbertian touch, inspired by the best traditions of Strephon, he would find it was not, in fact, necessary to make any investment at all. All he would need to do would be to propose to make an investment I do not propose to tell the House the mental contortions and ethical

gyrations through which Ministers might pass before they brought themselves to persuade themselves to the conclusion that they had wished to come to.
The proviso in sub-paragraph (a) with regard to finance, if it were meant to restrict the Regulation to any major investment by the State, would be so ridiculous as to be almost an insult to the House. I understand that the Government intend that this Regulation should in fact apply only where the financial investment of a capital nature is substantial. If that be so, I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend when he replies, will be able to give some very specific assurances on this point, because at the moment the financial door is wide open and there is no limit to the powers that the Minister could wield if he so desired. Certainly no hon. Member could claim that if there was not a substantial investment by the State at any given time the Minister would not be able to appoint these directors, because obviously he could merely propose that it should be done. I think we should examine for a moment the breadth of this Regulation, and in paragraph (3) I read:
In this Regulation the expression 'war production undertaking' means an undertaking which, in the opinion of the competent authority, is or should be principally engaged upon the production or supply of articles required for the use of the armed forces of the Crown or otherwise for the prosecution of the war or the defence of the realm, or upon the performance of services required for such purposes…
But it will be well within the knowledge of the House that unless, in fact, an undertaking comes within this definition, then no labour is permitted to it by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. It thus follows that all operative undertakings come within this Regulation, and that is a point which I think should be well appreciated by all hon. Members.
I have heard it said that we ought not to be too particular about these Regulations moving directors because workers are already being moved by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. But is that really a very good comparison? It is a point I have seen made, therefore I examine it, as I am entitled to do. I would suggest that if you are dealing on the one side with the direction of the undertaking, you should deal on the other side with the direction of the affairs of labour, which clearly are the


trade unions, and if therefore you wish to claim that the Government shall have the right to appoint men to the boards or the executive bodies of these undertakings, I think the comparable arrangements on the labour side would be for the Government to appoint members of the executives of the trade unions. [Laughter.] I am very glad that hon. Members on the other side treat that with hilarity. They do not seem to appreciate that in this world, and particularly when we have a Government which is representative both of the Left and of the Right, what is sauce for the goose ought also to be sauce for the gander. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are the trade unions incompetent?"] I need say he more on that point. I trust that, having examined it, no hon. Member on the other side will have the temerity to suggest that because workers are moved that is a reason why State directors should be placed on boards of management. The over-riding question which I ask myself in connection with this Regulation—and, I trust, in connection with every other—is, Will it enable the war to be waged more efficiently? That is the question which we should ask ourselves.
With some little knowledge of what takes place, I would like hon. Members to understand the type of events which arise before a Minister applies these powers. First, you will have the undertaking moving along smoothly, in consultation and collaboration with the Departments. Then, for some reason or other, trouble will brew. Perhaps it will be due largely to the undertaking, but in many cases it has been due largely to the Ministry. In any event, there is bad blood, possibly on both sides. In the end there is an impasse. At that point, the Minister takes his powers. I would say quite definitely that if an undertaking be so inefficient that it is prejudicing the war effort, a Minister should take it under his wing, by the appointment of a controller, but I cannot understand by what argument, when he is at loggerheads with the board of directors, it can be suggested that he should force his own nominees on to the board in order to get more from that undertaking. It seems to me, human nature being what it is, a perfectly preposterous suggestion that when you are having grave disagreement with a board you will, by forcing your own nominees on to that board, against the will of the directors, achieve anything which could

not be achieved by reason and diplomatic discussion, or, if that fails, by the appointment of a controller.
Let me emphasise that the whole of the management of British industry in this fourth year of the war is mentally keyed up to a point where I would suggest—and I know that my right hon. Friends Who are in charge of the Supply Departments would agree with me—they should not be faced with unnecessary trials and perplexities which are not in the national interest. Sometimes I hear it said that it is essential that we should not provoke labour. I entirely agree. It is equally essential that we should not provoke managements. The State has a responsibility to maintain a calm atmosphere at all the various levels in war production. It is an interesting fact that both in the early Napoleonic period and in recent Russian history the State insisted on having its representatives, or commissars, throughout national life, not only in industry but in the forces; but in the Napoleonic period that dual control was soon seen to lead nowhere, and recently our gallant Allies the Russians have, as I understand, withdrawn their political commissars from the forces because this dual control is not found to be fruitful. I would say, therefore, that in our war industries, whether it be by the State or by private enterprise, unity of control is essential.
As for the true reasons for the issue of this Regulation, my Friends and I are completely perplexed. I would ask my right hon. Friend to answer these two questions when he replies: What specific case renders these new powers necessary, and how can divided control increase production? At the request of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Production, some of my hon. Friends and I had a series of consultations with him on both Statutory Rule Orders 196 and 437. I have made no reference to those discussions, because they were not relevant to the points I needed to make, but if my right hon. Friend feels disposed to refer to those discussions, my hon. Friends and I take no exception to that, although of course he will well understand that any of my hon. Friends who follow him will equally be free to interpret those discussions in their own way.
I have been asked whether my hon. Friends and I intend to divide on this


issue. I would not like to prejudge what my right hon. Friend proposes to say, but it is quite manifest that we should be make it abundantly clear that the financial gravely failing in our duty if we did not provisos in the Order are made effective in the hands of a second Department, preferably the Treasury, and that that Department should equally share the responsibility of placing these directors on the board. I would submit in general that there have been recently too many alarums and excursions in industry. These Regulations should receive the gravest consideration by the Government before they are issued, and I am not convinced that that is always the case. When you issue a Regulation which is going to cause trouble of an unnecessary kind in industry, whether it be in management or in labour, you are throwing a spanner into the productive machine; and you have no right to do so in time of war. Industry and industrialists must feel that they will be judged in well doing, and they must not have their thoughts continually deflected from production to man the political ramparts of their factories.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) has covered the ground, in a very able speech, and I do not propose to make more than a few brief observations. I should first like to call attention to the form of the Order against which we are praying. This Order not only makes a new Regulation, but revokes an old Regulation. If I appreciate the position correctly, should this Prayer be carried to-day, that revocation will be cancelled, and the old Regulation would be revived. I can see that that would be so notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8, Sub-section (2), of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, which provides that if the House resolves that the Order be annulled, the Order shall thereupon cease to have effect except as respects things previously done.
I assume that revocation would not be preserved as a thing previously done under the Order against which we are praying, and in those circumstances, if the Prayer was carried, it would be necessary for us to pray again in a very few days against the revived old Regulation

or rather against the Order in Council under which it was made. As this situation arises through the fact of the Minister including both the making of the new Regulation and the revocation of the old in the same Order, I am asking my right hon. Friend whether he will be prepared to give this assurance. I am sure that he has not desire to take advantage of a rather technical absurdity, and therefore I am asking my right hon. Friend the Minister of Production whether he will give an assurance that should this Prayer be carried he will forthwith take steps to revoke the revived old Regulation.
Whereas that old Regulation to which I have referred was ill-conceived, on balance the new Regulation is a worse one. The old Regulation at least provided to the company some right of objection. It was provided under the old Regulation that if the directors of the company passed a resolution objecting to an appointment by the Minister, then that objection should be valid unless the Minister took the further step of appointing an authorised controller under the provisions of Regulation 55.
I want to know why that right has disappeared in the new Regulation. I recognise that there are some minor improvements in the new Regulation, but the disappearance of that right of objection, on balance, makes the new Regulation very much worse than the old. I recognise that the Government must have whatever powers of control are necessary for the war effort. There can be no question about that, and the Government have now far reaching powers of control, which my hon. Friend has described, under Regulations 54 (c), 55 and 78, but the Regulation with which we are concerned does not confer any power of control at all. The other Regulations confer powers of control so far-reaching that one can hardly imagine that any powers could be carried which would be greater. But this Regulation confers no power of control, because it is expressly provided that the Government nominee directors shall not constitute a majority of the board. I regard this as giving power of interference without responsibility, enabling intrusion of an undesirable character which will be likely to create ill-feeling and a diversion of effort. I think I could describe this Regulation as introducing the infiltration of bureau-

cracy into industry. I believe that the appointment of Government nominee directors can only serve a useful, purpose if it occurs as a result of agreement. There would obviously be no objection at all to a regulation designed to overcome technical legal difficulties in the articles of association so as to enable an agreement entered into with the company to be implemented.
I would like to turn for a moment to the words of proviso (a) in paragraph (1). That paragraph stipulates that action shall be taken only in cases where advances or grants of a capital nature have been made to the company for the purposes of its undertaking or capital assets have been provided for the use of the company. It does not appear to me that that proviso contemplates the subscription of share capital by the Government. My hon. Friend mentioned the Suez Canal Company, and to take a home instance, I would refer to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, upon which the Government have nominated directors. In that company the Government are and have always been very large shareholders, and in that case it is most appropriate that the Government should be represented on the board. The form of capital assistance contemplated in this Regulation appears to be in the form of loans in some shape or form, either of money or equipment. I do not think that as a rule people who lend money to companies have any right of appointing directors to the board. Debenture holders may have trustees to protect their security, but they do not normally appoint directors.

Mr. McKinlay: What happened in the case of William Beard-more and Co., of Parkhead? Who appointed Frank Hodges?

Sir J. Mellor: I am afraid that I cannot go into a particular, case. I did say that normally the directors represent the shareholders. I do not think that the Government should usurp the privilege of shareholders for purely financial reasons. I want to ask two or three questions with regard to the meaning of the words "advances or grants of a capital nature." Do the words "of a capital nature" apply to "advances" as well as to the word" grants"? It is important that that should be cleared up, because under the expression "advances" such things as progress payments upon

Government contracts might possibly be included.
There is a, further point. I would like the Minister to make it perfectly clear if he will that assets in shadow factories, which, of course, are operated by the undertaking as agents of the Government, are not intended to be included. One rather interesting thing appears, from an examination of the consolidated book of Regulations, and that is that although the Treasury are a competent authority for the purposes of Regulation 55, they are not the competent authority for the purpose of the Regulation under discussion, because, as no specified list of competent authorities is given, we should have to turn to Regulation 49 0 find out who they are—and that does not include the Treasury. For the reasons I have given it is important that this should be made at least a joint Treasury responsibility. To conclude, I regard this Regulation, as it at present stands, as a bad Regulation. Looked at from the financial point of view, it is unwarranted, and looked at from the point of view of production, it would defeat its own object. In either case, I consider that all it will give to the Government is a nuisance value.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Never was I more confident in feeling that in presenting the case I have to present to-day, I am speaking on behalf of the people of this country. I want to state our attitude on this issue in accordance with the facts as we see them. In our view the basic industries of this country and the services for the welfare of our country should be owned by the people.

Mr. Simmonds: State control.

Mr. Smith: While the Prayer was being moved and seconded there was hardly an interruption in the House. If that is the kind of provocative attitude to be taken up by the hon. Member, then he ought to be the last one to indulge in such an attitude. I shall never forget a phrase used by our late Speaker, for whom we all had great respect. It was that he liked to hear "cut and thrust" in Debate. We shall bear that in mind if the hon. Member intends to indulge in that kind of thing in this Debate. We are not satisfied with the Government's attitude in regard to the supply services of this country, but we recognise that, that is not the issue which is raised in this Debate. The need to win this war overshadows every other


issue. From 1938 that has determined the attitude of my hon. Friends in our approach to problems of the kind that we are discussing now. Even before the war—and let this be put on record, because it is too often forgotten—the trade unions of this country, and the engineering trade unions in particular, were so concerned at the worsening of the international situation that we agreed to forego all our hard-won privileges that had taken generations of struggle to win and which had been wrung from some of the people who are supporting this Prayer.
To enable us to win this war we require overwhelming superiority in equipment, and we must have maximum output, which means that we must have the greatest possible degree of efficiency. I ask hon. Members who have associated themselves with this Prayer whether they are satisfied that we have the maximum amount of efficiency in our supply industries. We are becoming greatly concerned at this war developing into a war of attrition. We want to supply our Russian and Chinese Allies with the greatest possible amount of supplies. [Interruption.] Well, if the hon. Member would only have regard to our record, he would know that we put British troops before any in the world——

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not discussing the war supply situation; we are discussing a definite Prayer.

Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir, but involved in the Prayer is the question for the need of the greatest possible degree of efficiency. We must bring about maximum production in the minimum of time. We say unhesitatingly that everything that impedes maximum output in the minimum of time should be limited in every way possible. The Government desire this Regulation as one method of increasing efficiency. There are ample safeguards for the protection of the companies, although the Mover and Seconder made little reference to the Regulation itself, especially the Seconder, and, of course, we can understand that in view of his associations——

Sir J. Mellor: I did not quite follow what the hon. Member said.

Mr. Smith: In this Regulation, if Members will be good enough to read it, they will find ample safeguards——

Sir J. Mellor: On a point of Order. I now understand that the hon. Member has made some reference to my associations. Would he kindly specify what he means?

Mr. Smith: I was referring to the hon. Member's association on a number of occasions with movements of this sort in the House. I want to ask the Minister some questions. What are the total public funds expended in advances to firms engaged in industry in this country? What are the total funds used in the provision of machine tools, or in so-called loans, or by any other arrangements, to companies in this country? What is the amount allowed by the Supply Ministries in providing capital assets? Are the Government satisfied that they are securing the return that they should get on the capital expenditure? If not, does this Order go far enough? The total of public money now granted to public companies must be very large, and we are entitled to receive from the Minister a reply as to whether we are getting the very best possible return for the capital expenditure. This Order is a very modest one. If objection is taken to a modest measure of this kind while we are fighting for our very lives, it is proof of what we shall have to contend with when we come to make real progress in this country. My hon. Friends have asked me to say that they will vote solidly against this Prayer, but they are concerned about some of the directors who have been appointed. They want to know who has been responsible for the selection of these directors. What have been their qualifications for selection? Has it been their ability and competence or has it been social status? My hon. Friends are also concerned about the age of some of these directors.

Sir Herbert Williams: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. As no director has been appointed under the Order, is a discussion of the qualifications of someone who has not been appointed in Order?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) knows that directors have already been appointed in several respects, and we ought to have assurances on this matter while the Prayer is under discussion. The hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) said that hon.


Members had been studying these Orders for months. He should have said that they have been studying these Orders for years. I have particulars of a case in which the hon. Member for South Croydon, the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), and others, took exception to a similar Order presented on 6th August, 1941. This is part of the war of attrition of the hon. Members in this House, who have been putting the interests of finance capital before the interests of the prosecution of the war.

Mr. Simmonds: On a point of Order. I consider that a wholly unworthy remark and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.

Mr. Smith: This is a debating Chamber. It is better to fight these issues out in the House than elsewhere. In this country, in a House that was democratically elected in a representative capacity, we can reason with one another and debate these questions. Hon Members opposite have spoken frankly on their attitude, and I intend to do the same thing on behalf of the people I represent. I have another Order——

Mr. Speaker: This is not the occasion to go into a general discussion of various Orders. We are discussing one Prayer, and one only.

Mr. Smith: I will respect your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. All I want to do is to point out that at a time when we are fighting for our very lives, this is the kind of thing we have to put up with. There is another very serious aspect of this matter which I would like you, Mr. Speaker, to consider.

Mr. George Griffiths: Sniggers across the way.

Mr. Smith: Some of this superiority is based on the fact that some people, because they happen to be in a privileged position, know more about industrial affairs than those of us who have not had the same opportunity; but some of us happen to have spent our lives in some of the largest factories in the country where not hundreds but thousands are employed. I could pick out men employed in industry in this country who would manage these factories as well as, if not better than, hon. Gentlemen opposite. I was

about to say that this Order was first presented to His Majesty on 10th February. On nth February, the Order was laid on the Table of the House, and therefore, according to my interpretation of the Manual of Procedure, it became the property of the House of Commons. In my view, these discussions ought never to have taken place, except by leave of the House. Let me give an example. The Lord President of the Council, when he was Home Secretary, introduced many Regulations. He came to the House, and we had a frank discussion in which hon. Members from all quarters took part. He bowed to the democratic ideas that were expressed in the House and invited hon. Members of all sections to meet him at the Home Office. I contend that the procedure that has been adopted in the present case is contrary to Parliamentary practice, out of harmony with the spirit of the Manual of Procedure, and detrimental to the best interests of Parliamentary government.

Mr. Simmonds: I hope the hon. Member understands fully that neither my hon Friends nor I made any gesture or request to the Government. We were invited into consultation.

Mr. Smith: According to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 24th February of this year, the hon. Member for Duddeston said:
I had given notice that I desired to move a Prayer…but as a result of this Motion being placed on the Order Paper certain discussions have taken place and are continuing, and my hon. Friends and I are in agreement with the Government that it would be desirable that these discussions should continue before I, in fact, move the Prayer. In these circumstances I have asked that the Prayer may stand over to the second Sitting Day in the next series of Sittings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1943; col. 263, Vol. 387.]
I never intended that the point should be interpreted in the way the hon. Member seems to have taken it. The point I was making is that it is time the House examined its procedure in regard to this kind of thing. It is a question of interpretation. We have moved very far since the days of Erskine May and we want attention to be given to that aspect. There is another aspect of the same issue. When members of the trade union movement are active on municipal bodies the town clerk may rule that they are not eligible to take part in a particular vote.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now discussing the general procedure of the House. That is not in Order, as I have informed him before. We are discussing a particular Prayer and we must confine our remarks to that.

Mr. Smith: I am doing that, but it was essential to make that point to lead up to what I am about to say. Most of the hon. Members who have put their names to this Prayer are directors of a number of companies. I am not speaking critically in regard to that because, so long as the social system in which we are living continues, it is an honourable position for men to be directors of companies, although I have my own views about it. Owing to our war needs, industry has been linked up; sub-contracts are given out to many small firms, and the whole industry of the country is dove-tailed together. That means that Members who have signed this Prayer are bound to be, directly or indirectly, interested in the Order. In my view the Government ought not to have conducted negotiations or consultations with people directly interested in that way. I am sure the House will take no objection to Members discharging their duties but before they went behind the backs of the House they ought to have indicated that they had a personal interest in the matter. In our view, the Government and the House ought to examine what is taking place before we have a repetition of this kind of thing. In the "Financial News" of 1st April we get a key to an understanding of the attitude of those who are behind the Prayer.
Well over 100 Members of Parliament had, up to last night, signed the Prayer asking the House of Commons to annul the Order in Council. The Order can be applied to aircraft or to any other type of firm. One of the greatest objections to such appointments, it is understood, is that a company's secrets would no longer be sacrosanct and there is some fear that information might become known which would be used after the war to the detriment of the company.
That is the greatest possible indictment that one could make against this Prayer and those associated with it. I have frequently referred, here and elsewhere, to the efficiency of the war services and said that we were not attaining maximum production because, in some cases, big industry was, within certain limits, putting post-war considerations before the successful prosecution of the war. Here, at last, we have it admitted in print.

Sir H. Williams: On a point of Order. As that was written in respect of an Order which is not before the House, is it pertinent to this Debate?

Mr. Smith: I understood that it dealt with this Prayer. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We shall have to leave it to the "Financial News" to say. Our men and women have been directed to employment. Many of them have been fined and many sent to prison. Since the beginning of the war Regulations of all kind have been allowed to go through the House without a word being said. In September, 1939, we were concerned about the large number of Regulations that were going through, but we restrained ourselves. We have had pressure brought to bear on us from many quarters, but we have resisted it because we put the successful prosecution of the war before everything else. I, therefore, appeal to patriotic Members of the House to vote solidly against the Prayer.

The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): I think everyone will agree that vigilance in the matter of these Regulations is very commendable, and I should like to congratulate the Mover and Seconder of the Prayer on a very energetic piece of roof-spotting. I am not putting it any higher than that. If in my opinion they have spotted a number of hostile aircraft which do not exist, and have mistaken the silhouettes of a number of friendly aircraft as if they were hostile, I should be the last to complain. I think it is necessary to look at the background against which this Regulation is issued. First there is a broad background, and that is that, for better or worse—I think very much for the better—the Government have pursued the policy of employing private enterprise to, produce munitions with which to carry on the war. There are, of course, exceptions, but, by and large, we have pursued the policy of using private enterprise as the agent and medium of producing weapons of war, and there is no intention, and it is not possible to read into the regulation any intention, to reverse that policy in any way. The Government will continue to produce munitions of war under the same general policy. There is a more detailed background. In the engineering and allied industries the Government have invested by way of advances—I do not think there are any investments—about £280,000,000.

Sir Irving Albery: Does that include guarantees to banks?

Mr. Lyttelton: They are advances made by the Government. There are some guarantees as well, but I do not know the figures.

Mr. Simmonds: Does that sum include progress payments, and are they of a capital nature?

Mr. Lyttelton: They are of a capital nature. I think it can be said very roughly that a total of £1,000,000,000 is invested in the engineering and allied industries. Therefore, as a start this Regulation could apply only to 28 per cent. of the total capital represented by the industry. Of course, the Regulation will not be applied to the whole of the £280,000,000; it will be applied only to that part of it where the Government consider that to do so would be appropriate. That is the background against which the Regulation is issued. It is not a heroic piece of legislation. It does not involve any of the factors referred to by the last speaker. We are dealing with a limited and not very heroic measure.
I will go through the Regulation itself. First, the competent authority has to be satisfied that the Regulation should be applied for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the war production of the undertaking. The Mover and Seconder of the Prayer did rather scant justice to these words. Their effect is to remove this subject altogether from the political field. The competent authority has to be satisfied that it is in the interests of production, and if he is not so satisfied, he cannot apply the Regulation.

Sir H. Williams: He is the sole judge of the state of his own mind, and he can apply the Regulation to every case where he thinks he can. Those words cannot be challenged in any court, and are therefore nugatory.

Mr. Lyttelton: Not in the courts, but we are all judges of our own state of mind. A Minister surely is responsible to his colleagues and to the House to see that the declared policy of the Government is carried out. To describe this proviso as nugatory does not seem to me justifiable.

Mr. Levy: On the question of finance, my right hon. Friend knows

as well as I do that before any advances are made by a Supply Department they have to receive the sanction of the Treasury. As the Treasury are capable of looking after their own funds, why should they not appoint their own director?

Mr. Lyttelton: If my hon. Friend will allow me to develop the argument, I will deal with that point. The point shortly is that the capital is, so to speak, only a limiting factor in the application of this Regulation. The appointment of directors is to promote efficiency of production, and therefore they would be appointed by the competent authority. The next proviso is that the directors must be experienced in the direction of companies. This means that the competent authority will not appoint clergymen or doctors or bookmakers or shop stewards to the boards of companies. They have to be people who are experienced in the direction of companies. The next proviso is that any person so appointed shall, unless previously removed by the direction of the competent authority, continue to hold office as a director for a period of one year from the date of his appointment and no longer, but without prejudice to the power of the competent authority to re-appoint him. That means that instead of the directors coming up for re-election under the articles of association by rotation, the competent authority has to review the appointment of the Government nominees, and if, owing to the personality or experience of the directors, they are not achieving increased efficiency of production, it will be open to the competent authority to appoint others. That is a valuable safeguard to ensure that in applying the Regulation we improve efficiency.
With regard to paragraph (1, a) I confess that it is extremely difficult to get a form of words which shows in precise terms what "substantial" is. The words we have are an attempt at it. They are "substantial having regard to the circumstances of the case." In the case of a company with a capital of £100,000 receiving £100,000 advance from the Government, the sum is substantial, but a £100,000 advance to a company with a capital of £5,000,000 is not substantial. Therefore, there must be some vagueness in the actual terminology.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Could a percentage of the advance to capital be put in to indicate "substantial"?

Mr. Lyttelton: We have looked into that, but it is almost impossible to frame suitable words. I am about to say something which I think may reassure hon. Members on this point. There are two safeguards to this paragraph. The first is that in all cases before taking action under this Regulation the Minister will refer the matter to the Inter-Departmental Committee in my Ministry, known as the Craven Committee. Its members are Sir Charles, Craven (Chairman), Lord Weir, Mr. A. McKinstry, Sir Percy Mills, Mr. Frank Chapell and Mr. J. C. Little. The cases which come up will be referred to that Committee, which is only advisory. This procedure will not in any way detract from the responsibility of the Minister. It will give an opportunity for companies to make representations, whether those representations are on general subjects or are directed to personalities. That is the first pledge that we give in the administration of the Regulation. The second one is that in considering the field over which this Regulation applies the Treasury will be brought into consultation as to what is a substantial investment within the meaning of this paragraph.

Sir H. Williams: Are they to be brought in only for the purpose of interpreting the word "substantial" and not for any other purpose?

Mr. Lyttelton: The Treasury will be brought into consultation on those financial points which are contained in the last few words of this paragraph, which is the most appropriate function for the Treasury in a matter of this kind. The procedure under these provisos is only advisory and does not detract from the responsibility of the Minister concerned. I do not think I need say anything about the number of persons to be appointed to the board except that they cannot be a majority. I come to paragraph (2), on page 2, which merely says that the director is deemed to have the necessary qualification of shares without actually acquiring them and is appointed within the articles of association. I do not think it is necessary to go further into the details of the Regulation.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the Minister be good enough to say who is going to pay them?

Mr. Lyttelton: There can be no obligation on the company to pay the directors. It can pay the directors if it so wishes. It may surprise hon. Members to know that there is a good deal of voluntary work done in the field of production.

Mr. William Brown: At Question Time to-day it was stated that one director appointed for Overseas Airways was Mr. Marchbanks, who, as far as I know, has no experience of running any company. He has to be paid £750. If it is not to be paid by the company, by whom is it paid? The Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Lyttelton: The Government will try to find a director who will do the business, but under this Regulation there can be no obligation on the company to pay. [Interruption.] The Government may pay. Probably he will not serve if he does not get anything.
Those are the details of the Regulation. The main thing is that the Government are, in accordance with the ordinary commercial practice, to be represented on the boards of companies in which they have substantial investments. If there is a Parliamentary analogy, I seem to remember having read something about "No taxation without representation," and I can assure my hon. Friend who seconded this Motion that it is by no means in the case of proprietary interests only that representation is asked for on a board. It is very common to find creditors, especially when they think that the affairs of a company are not going as well as they might, obtaining representation on the board, and it is the same where banks decide they must have representatives on the boards of industrial companies.
First of all, then, the Government are getting the ordinary commercial right to be represented. Next I must refer to a very peculiar statement—if I may say so, coming from such an experienced Member as my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston—about financial directors. There are no such things. Directors are directors, and that is all. If my hon. Friend cares to look into the law on the subject, he will find that on many occasions directors have sought in the


courts to narrow the field of their responsibilities, and the courts have always ruled that this was quite impossible. A director is a director.

Mr. Simmonds: I think my right hon. Friend has misrepresented me. I was speaking of their functions in the company, not of their legal responsibilities.

Mr. Lyttelton: That is very much the same thing. I cannot make a distinction, and I do not think we need labour the point. I come to other aspects of this matter, those really covering the question, "Why do the Government want the Regulation at all?" I share the view of my hon. Friend who seconded this Motion that very little good will be done unless there is a measure of good will between the company and the Government who are going to appoint directors to the board, but what he has entirely neglected is that this instrument is a far better one for achieving our object than the instrument of negotiation. I will explain why. If, owing to their large financial interests, the Government, so to speak, negotiate directors on to the board, then several things happen. First, the board may be full under the company's articles of association, and in order to make room for the Government nominees it would be necessary for the company permanently to alter its constitution.

Sir J. Mellor: It is not necessary to have compulsory powers for this purpose. I did suggest that the Government should have a Regulation which would enable them to override any technical legal difficulties of that kind, so as to implement an agreement.

Mr. Lyttelton: There are several other points which I can make which will show, I hope, to my hon. Friend that my argument is on the correct lines. I have had a long experience of the management of joint stock companies, and I say certainly that I should much prefer to have a director, or two directors, or three directors, appointed to the board of a company of which I was chairman under this Regulation than to accept him or them under a system of negotiation. I have dealt with the first point that the board may be full, and that therefore the constitution of the company would have to be altered. A second point is that I might have to ask some of the existing directors who might

be doing very useful work to resign in order to make room for the Government nominees. That is sometimes an invidious task. The third point is that once directors have been negotiated on to a board they become part of the family. The Government cuckoos are permanently in the nest, and it requires executive action by the board or by the shareholders to get them out of the nest. Under this Regulation, on the other hand, the tenure of office of directors, subject to this yearly right of review, is coterminous with the Defence Regulations, which may admittedly remain in force after what we call the end of the war. At any rate, no executive action is required, no invidious requests have to be made, and the directors appointed will simply lapse into their honourable retirement, which we hope they will deserve. Therefore, it is greatly preferable that directors should be appointed under these powers, which mean no stigma upon the company, than that pressure should be brought upon the company to take them permanently into their family.

Mr. Bowles: When the Government exercise the powers under this Regulation surely they are dissatisfied with the board of directors, and someone must go. I do not quite understand why the right hon. Gentleman says that if he were chairman of a company, he would be much better pleased to work under this Regulation because of ensuring friendly relations. They have let the country down.

Mr. Lyttelton: No, no, certainly not. If the country has been let down, then there are the most drastic powers in the hands of the Government to put in an authorised controller. That, I think, answers a lot of points, which I did not think had great force, which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith). If he wishes for comparisons between the direction of labour and the direction of capital, the correct comparison is between the authorised controller and the Essential Work Order, and not a comparison with a very limited Regulation of this kind. To answer my hon. Friend's point, what we seek to do here is to take measures to prevent a serious state of affairs coming about. Many of these companies are required to double or treble their production, and the Government directors will be of great


assistance to them, especially in their subcontracting. That, I think, will be generally welcomed by their boards. It will be a useful function. The point with which I was dealing is that it is far better for a company to have a director of this kind than to take somebody permanently into the company's family.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Do. I, understand that this Order will be operated only where the Government are of the opinion that extra contracts or extra orders are going to be given to a particular company?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, there is no such limitation at all. I was giving that as an instance where directors could be of use to the company to promote efficiency. One of the instances was where the production of the firm was, say, going to be doubled or quadrupled.
There is one other point to which I would like to refer before I sit down. I think the original Regulation was open to the objection that it tended to widen the field in which the appointment of an authorised controller would be the appropriate measure. One could see that under that Regulation circumstances might arise which were not in themselves very serious but which might lead to an appointment of an authorised controller, in a case which did not require such very drastic action. One of the objects of this Regulation is to provide the Government with much more moderate means of preventing these evils before they arise, and therefore it narrows the field over which the appointment of an authorised controller might be appropriate. I must be quite candid and say that neither of the two cases which the hon. Member has in mind would have been cured, at any rate this year, by the existence of such a Regulation, but if we have the power to appoint these directors at an earlier stage, the need for drastic action will I think in many cases be prevented. I do not think that it is very good doctoring that whenever a man has a sore throat you should remove his tonsils. I suggest in these matters that the Government should have a certain number of mild therapeutics of this kind, and not be armed with the surgeon's knife only. I point out to hon. Members that the effect of this Regulation will be to narrow the field in which the appointment of

authorised controllers is necessary. I apologise for having gone so fully into this matter, but I hope that this explanation will satisfy hon. Members——

Dr. Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly turn his tonsils in this direction, as we cannot hear what he is saying?

Mr. Lyttelton: I was saying that I hoped hon. Members would realise that this is a reasonable Measure which will promote efficiency and prevent the exercise of very drastic powers which we do not want to use, except where they are absolutely necessary.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Does what the right hon. Gentleman has been telling us mean that the Government do not wish to hurt the feelings of the directors unless that is unavoidable?

Sir Herbert Williams: This has been an interesting Debate. We have had two speeches in favour of the Prayer and two in opposition to it. The original speech in opposition came from the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) and he based it entirely on the grounds of efficiency. We have had one from the Minister in which he emphasised that this really was a financial consideration. Neither speech had the remotest relation to the Order in Council and neither gave a solitary reason why the Government want this power. There is no reason. The Government have got themselves into a tangle because, in the days when people were not watching these things, they turned Orders out like sausages from a sausage-machine, and without proper consideration. If the Government had known three months ago that this Debate was likely to take place, we should never have seen this Order at all.
The hon. Member for Stoke showed me a document relating to a matter which was referred to. It had reference to the gentleman who is now the Chief Justice for India, formerly a Member of this House. That gentleman tabled a Prayer against Regulation 78, which comes into to-night's discussion. After it had been explained by the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply that the Regulation was wanted for dealing with certain very difficult cases, the Motion was withdrawn, which indicated a measure of


sweet reasonableness on the part of those who wanted to know what it meant. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent is not anxious to know what things mean, he has objected.
We have had two announcements by the Minister and we have to weigh up their significance because they may be of sufficient value to justify us in not proceeding with our Prayer. The first is that, before action is taken at all, there will be a reference to a committee presided over by Sir Charles Craven, who many of us have the honour of knowing, a very distinguished engineer who has successfully conducted many great enterprises. With him are associated a number of other people, some of whom I know and some of whom I do not know, but all of whom I believe are men of ability and probity. That is the first check on any abuse by Ministers. The next check is not as good as I hoped. It relates to the interpretation of the word "substantial" in paragraph (a) of the proviso. The whole trouble about this document is that it cannot be challenged. Any action under it cannot be challenged in the courts, because every action is taken "in the opinion of the Minister" and "in the opinion of the competent authority." The word "competent" is a legal phrase. It does not mean that the Minister is competent; very often he is incompetent and he may be out on his ear three days after he has been a competent authority. You cannot get into court on these matters and therefore you cannot examine the mind of a Minister. If you did, you might find there was not anything there to examine.

Mr. Davidson: While the hon. Member is dealing with competency, will he say whether he means by "competent" a Minister who retains office, or does he mean by "incompetent" one who has been in office and cannot get back again?

Sir H. Williams: It may be either. Sometimes the reason why a man retains office is that he is incredibly subservient. I am told that being a "Yes" man is the best qualification of all for a Minister. These matters cannot be challenged in the courts and therefore we have to consider that, if a Minister thinks of any of these things, he can do them without fear of any legal challenge of any kind whatever. The matter cannot be challenged in Debate in this House because

there is no means of securing an effective Debate. I understand the Minister of Aircraft Production to say, "Except by Vote of Censure," but that would be an extreme case if a Minister had rather unwisely, shall we say, thrust certain directors on to a board of a company as the result of which some deterioration had taken place in the efficiency of that company. The Minister now suggests that we should take the extreme step of putting down a Vote of Censure, but that is not easy. An extreme step should not be taken in a matter which may be important in itself but is of minor importance in relation to the whole effort, and it is childish to suggest that Vote of Censure is the means we should choose.
If a Regulation made under this Order could be debated as we are debating this matter to-night, democratic power would exist, but all the sub-Orders are not debatable in this House. That is why some of us regard this method of administration as being essentially Fascist in character. Support for this Order in Council has been obtained in the most extraordinary way. Take to-day's edition of the "Pink 'Un," as I now call it. It is not as amusing as Mr. Sievier's "Pink 'Un" was. I refer to "The Times" newspaper. They have a leading article in which they ask for support for this Order in Council on the grounds that if the Government do not get it, they will be deprived of certain powers which they have recently been exercising. "The Times" copied that from a recent edition of the "Shop Stewards' Journal," published a month ago, where the same dishonest argument was used. Other journals have also used the same argument. Not one newspaper that has been critical has had the honesty to state the facts, and the facts show a desire to intrude directors on to the board of a company which is not inefficient. It is not a case of dealing with a company that is inefficient because, in that case powers under Regulations 78 and 55 apply. No case has been made out and no example cited. There is no reason why we should not cite examples in this House, where we are protected and cannot be sued for it.
It is one supreme advantage. We do not mind discussing things; we do not mind discussing persons. If the Government had in mind one solitary example of a company where they wanted to use this power, why not say it? They dare not—


no case, no example, no attempt to build up an example. What case is there for it? What case had been made out? The speech the hon. Gentleman behind me made had no relation to the Order. The speech of the Minister had no relation to the Order—not the faintest indication, except that I understood him to say that he did not want to put a clergyman on the board. Some clergymen are exceedingly competent. What is the case against this Regulation? What is the board of a company? It is a team of men who have learned to work together. It is essential, whether it is the committee of a football club, the committee of a trade union, or a board of directors, that they should all have the same quality; if they are to work together, they must be a team. Into that team it is proposed to obtrude outsiders against the wishes of the people on the board.

Sir P. Hannon: Does the hon. Member contend that every board in this country is a team? Does he realise that there are boards of directors here and there where there is a sad absence of team work?

Sir H. Williams: All I know is that if I were on a board of directors which was not a team and could not be made a team, I should get off, which is the proper solution. Unless you can work with your colleagues, you have no business there. More mistakes are being made by the Ministries than are being made by the companies engaged in war contracting. A company is asked to do something which it believes is probably unwise and wrong. One of the representatives comes down for a discussion with the management, and the management resists what the Ministry want to do because they know it is against the public interest. It has happened dozens of times. Then some quite important person representing the Ministry, someone whom the company probably would not employ because he is not good enough, will threaten, "Unless you do this, we will put Government directors on the board." You are going to intimidate every management in this country, and diminish efficiency by that power, and even more if you obtrude on the board people not acceptable to those there—not on the ground that the company is inefficient; that is not the basis of the Order; the Government have all the powers they

need under 55 and 78. They have made out no case for this. [Interruption.] Strengthen the board? But how do you strengthen the board by shoving in a stranger whom the other people do not like? It will weaken the board. If you want to help people, you can negotiate, but the method of pushing someone into a household will never do any good at all, and everybody knows it.
We are offered these two safeguards, one the Craven Committee, which I admit goes a very long way because of the existing composition of that committee; and the further safeguard, that in interpreting the word "substantial" the Treasury has to be satisfied. I think that is an advantage a little greater than it appears at first sight. It means that before any one of the Production Ministers can act on this Regulation he has to consult the Treasury, and therefore another Minister is brought in. The bringing in of another Minister if there are difficulties means bringing in the War Cabinet. That does represent a very important advance. Obviously, it does. It means that no individual Production Minister can act on his own. I have nothing to say against individual Production Ministers. I do not know whether one or all of them desire these powers, or which. It is true that the name of the Minister of Aircraft Production has been spread about the papers a great deal, but that has been entirely by those who support this Order, not by those who criticise it. Where they have got their inspiration from, I do not know. Not through us, because we had not the faintest idea when we tabled our Prayer whether he was interested or any other Minister.
All we saw was an Order in Council empowering altogether about six different Ministers to do things. We did not know which of them it was who was parrticularly interested. The first time I discovered which was particularly interested was when I read the "Shop Stewards' Journal," next when I read the "Daily Worker" and then the "News Review" and still more when I read the "Sunday Pictorial." All these organs of public opinion have dragged in the Minister of Aircraft Production. We have been forced to the conclusion that he above everyone else wanted to use this power in the same way as he used to horrify the hon. Members behind me by wanting to shut up the


House of Commons and rule by Order in Council. That, I understand, is largely the reason why he and the party behind me parted company. [An HON. MEMBER: "What has this to do with the Prayer?"] Because he wants the Prayer. [Interruption.] I did not say so, but all the papers which gave the fullest reports of his speech say so, and I presume they must be in his confidence, because they published so much about his desire.
Having regard to the very important statement made by the Minister of Production, I am inclined to suggest to my hon. Friend that as we have obtained an honourable declaration representing very important changes which mean that these things cannot be done irresponsibly by a single Minister, then as sensible people we have to take account of the declaration. Declarations by Ministers are always honoured, and I am inclined to think that my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) could with advantage ask leave to withdraw the Prayer, as he has achieved the main part of his object.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kendall.

Mr. Simmonds: Mr. Simmonds rose——

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member wishes to withdraw the Prayer, he cannot do so if anyone else objects.

Mr. Kendall: As a comparatively new Member of this House, it is not often that I enter into debate. I do so to-day for two reasons. First of all, I run a war factory which is highly efficient. Secondly, my firm has had a great deal of experience of conditions similar to those of 54CA. Before giving the House my experiences, I would like to make my own approach, an appropriate angle of approach, to the problem we have been discussing to-day. Some hon. Members have approached it from the angle of leaving private enterprise entirely alone—efficient or inefficient. Some hon. Members will prefer State control, State owner-Ship, as being the only solution for this type of problem. My own angle is rather different. I am not wedded to private enterprise nor to State control. My only desire is to see that every factory shall turn out the maximum of its production—nothing less. Whether that is done through State ownership, private enterprise, or a mixture of both I do not care, so long as we get the results.
The Prayer we are discussing is to annul 54CA. This provides that if the competent authority is satisfied that it is desirable, in the interests of efficiency, so to do, he may appoint a director or directors to the board of the undertaking concerned. This power is limited to enterprises spending a substantial amount of public money or receiving substantial grants. The number of persons that the competent authority can appoint to the board is a maximum of three directors, and it shall not, under any consideration at all, represent a majority. The House has to ask itself whether these conditions will produce the desired results, increased efficiency and production. I would like to apply two tests. The first is the experience I have had with the application of 54CA to my own company. One of my right hon. Friend's predecessors appointed to the board with which I am concerned a number of directors. It is not part of my purpose to criticise the individuals whom he appointed, but I should be doing less than justice to the situation if I failed to say that their effect on the production of my company for good or ill has been precisely nil. The record of expanding production of my company before their appointment was tremendous. The amount of production since their appointment has continued to be tremendous. I ask the House to believe me when I say that without their appointment this production would still have been tremendous. I believe that the same directors, who are operating under conditions similar to those of 54CA, would agree with me whole-heartedly in that statement. They would be the last to claim that they have had any effect in either increased production, lowered costs, or better quality. It is quite true that I have derived the advantage of coming to know some very charming gentlemen; I have made friends. But surely some other purpose ought to be served in applying 54CA than to facilitate my introduction, or anybody else's introduction, to charming people.
I would like to assert the following things of directors whom Ministers of Aircraft Production have appointed to my firm or to other firms, under one or another of the Defence Regulations. I assert, first, that they have appointed, generally speaking, elderly people; secondly, that they have tended to choose men with names and reputations already


attached to them for past accomplishments; and, thirdly, that they have tended to choose the names from three specific fields—finance, the legal field, and the trade-union field. I wish to make it quite plain that I do not discourage age, technical qualifications, or trade union representatives or financial contacts. I assert, however, that the character of the appointments so far made derives from a profound misapprehension of the job to be done.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is discussing a matter which comes under the administration of the Department, and not under the Order. It comes under Supply, and not under this Motion.

Mr. Buchanan: We are discussing the appointment of directors. Surely if the hon. Member can show that the directors so far appointed have not been what was claimed for them, that has a bearing on the matter.

Mr. Speaker: In going into detail the hon. Member is going much too far, in my opinion.

Mr. Kendall: I have finished with that side of the matter. The present position in factories is very simple. The price of practically every piece of raw material is controlled, through the Steel Control. Therefore, we do not any longer need to have directors who may be financial geniuses in the raw material world. Wages are fixed for us, through conciliation or arbitration, and employers are pledged to pay the appropriate rates of wages for the different categories of workpeople they employ. In the third place, we do not need directors who are chartered accountants, because prices are controlled through Ministerial Orders, which give the Ministers power of investigation and access to all books. I have, as the House knows, had personal experience of that. Finally, profits are controlled, through the Excess Profits Tax. In short, the problem to-day is one of production alone. It is concerned with factory lay-out, factory organisation and factory planning. In this field, however eminent these people may be in their own line of business, I say, through my own knowledge and experience, that the appointments made so far under the conditions of 54CA have proved themselves to be eminently undesirable.
But the Prayer we are discussing does not come from people who are satisfied that 54CA is not enough. It comes from people who feel that 54CA is too much, who resent any interference with the freedom of private enterprise, efficient or inefficient. Therefore, whatever I think of 54CA and its inadequacies, I have no sympathy with the motives that have prompted the tabling of this Prayer. What is the conclusion to be drawn? Is it that we should leave 54CA where it is? Plainly, that does not solve the problem. Is it that we should do nothing? No, for that involves the admission that we should give up the problem as being insoluble. Then what is the remedy? It is to apply 54C or Defence Regulation 78. That remedy has been applied by the Minister of Aircraft Production in three instances. From all the information I have had given to me over the last 12 months, I think the position he has taken has been absolutely right, proper, and well justified. My purpose to-day is to urge him and all Production Ministers to be utterly ruthless in the application of 54C and Defence Regulation 78, and to ignore Defence Regulation 54CA, which is only a compromise, and take over the other factories which are inefficient. There are only two categories of factories in this country—the efficient and the inefficient—and because of this Prayer the Minister should now start ignoring the borderline cases and take them over. As far as labour is concerned, the Minister of Labour has, with thoroughness and ruthlessness, applied the powers which were given to him.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is discussing a wider question. We are discussing, as I had to remind the hon. Member before, one particular Prayer.

Mr. Kendall: I wanted to say more, but I close in view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I am confident that experience will teach all Production Ministers that they will not solve their problem of efficient production through the application of 54CA and appointing a minority of directors and those of an unsuitable type to the boards of existing companies. I am confident that experience alone will teach Ministers that the only real solution is to exercise the powers vested in them in Regulation 54 and Regulation 78, and it is my earnest hope that they are the two powers that they will apply and not 54CA.

Mr. Buchanan: Some of my colleagues thought that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), who to some extent appears to be the leader of the Conservative Party, was running away. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is back again."] I did not take the view that he was running away but that he had got very substantial guarantees to-day. I think that the guarantees are another sign that the present Government move steadily to the right each time. Sir Charles Craven is a great engineering magnate, and the guarantees which have been given are guarantees which, if I belonged to that party, I would welcome. The Government seem steadily to make every concession to those who come from certain quarters of the House, whereas those who hold different political views do not receive the slightest concession, and that is evidence of the tendency of political development in these days.

Mr. Simmonds: I must agree that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Production has given us some very substantial pledges, and I am sensible of what my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and a number of my hon. Friends who signed this Prayer feel on this issue. Although, therefore, we feel that the Order would be better off the Statute Book, we nevertheless take note of what has been said, and although we shall be very diligent to see how these powers are used, I would, with the permission of the House, beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

It being after the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.